mariner5555
04-14 04:41 PM
but most of the people that I know of, who have very young kids ( 1 - 5/6 year olds) ..buying a house was a right decision. (and common sense says the same thing).
I know people who bought townhouses, not big houses (thus paying mortgage which is slightly more than the apartment rents). They are not slogging extra and they are having single income. I keep re-iterating that what I meant is when things are conducive and situation is right. I do not know which part of that you do not understand.
I said there are exceptions ..which part of that you don't understand !!
since you are resting yr case ..I won't drag this more.
I know people who bought townhouses, not big houses (thus paying mortgage which is slightly more than the apartment rents). They are not slogging extra and they are having single income. I keep re-iterating that what I meant is when things are conducive and situation is right. I do not know which part of that you do not understand.
I said there are exceptions ..which part of that you don't understand !!
since you are resting yr case ..I won't drag this more.
wallpaper Find Best Christian Tattoos
gomirage
06-07 04:56 PM
The above story should not come as a shock to anyone. This is just economics laws coming to to play. This keep going until the market finds it equilibrium point, where there are enough people that can afford the supply. This can happen in 2 ways. either income rises for people to afford the prices or prices fall low enough for people to buy. High skilled immigration can provide answers in scenario 1, low skilled immigration may be an answer in scenario 2.
Macaca
12-14 11:40 AM
Plan B For Pelosi And Reid (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/12/congressional_democrats_need_n.html) By E. J. Dionne | Washington Post, December 14, 2007
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
WASHINGTON -- Congressional Democrats need a Plan B.
Republicans chortle as they block Democratic initiatives -- and accuse the majority of being unable to govern. Rank-and-filers are furious their leaders can't end the Iraq War. President Bush sits back and vetoes at will.
Worse, Democrats are starting to blame each other, with those in the House wondering why their Senate colleagues don't force Republicans to engage in grueling, old-fashioned filibusters. Instead, the GOP kills bills by coming up with just 41 votes. Senators defend themselves by saying that their House colleagues don't understand how the august "upper" chamber works these days.
If Bush's strategy is to drag Congress down to his low level of public esteem, he is succeeding brilliantly. A Washington Post/ABC News poll released earlier this week found that only 33 percent of Americans approved of Bush's handling of his job -- and just 32 percent felt positively about Congress' performance. The only comfort for Democrats: The public dislikes Republicans in Congress (32 percent approval) even more than it dislikes congressional Democrats (40 percent approval).
The Democrats' core problem is that they have been unable to place blame for gridlock where it largely belongs, on the Republican minority and the president.
In an ideal world, Democrats would pass a lot of legislation that Bush would either have to sign or veto. The president would have to take responsibility for his choices. The House has passed many bills, but the Republican minority has enormous power in the Senate to keep the legislation from ever getting to the president's desk. This creates the impression that action is being stalled through some vague and nefarious congressional "process."
Not only can a minority block action in the Senate, but the Democrats' nominal one-vote majority is frequently not a majority at all. A few maverick Democrats often defect, and the party runs short-handed when Sens. Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Chris Dodd and Barack Obama are off running for president.
And Bush is learning that even when bills reach his desk, he can veto them with near impunity. On Wednesday, Bush issued his second veto of a bill to extend coverage under the State Children's Health Insurance Program to 10 million kids. Democrats have the high ground on the issue and more than two-thirds support in the Senate, but the bill lacks a veto-proof House majority.
After Bush vetoed the first version of the SCHIP bill, Democrats changed it slightly to make it more attractive to Republicans. And the new version passed both houses too. When Bush vetoed the SCHIP measure again, almost nobody paid attention. The Washington Post ran a three-paragraph story on the corner of page A18; The New York Times ran a longer story -- on page A29.
Democrats can't even get credit for doing the right thing. If Congress and Bush don't act, the alternative minimum tax -- originally designed to affect only Americans with very high incomes -- will raise taxes on about 20 million middle- and upper-middle-class people for whom it was never intended.
Democrats want to protect those taxpayers, but also keep their pay-as-you-go promise to offset new spending or tax cuts with tax increases or program cuts elsewhere. They would finance AMT relief with $50 billion in new taxes on the very wealthiest Americans or corporations. The Republicans say no, just pass the AMT fix.
Here's a guarantee: If the Democrats fail to pass AMT relief, they will be blamed for raising taxes on the middle class. If they pass it without the tax increase, deficit hawks will accuse them of selling out.
What's the alternative to the internecine Democratic finger-pointing of the sort that made the front page of Thursday's Washington Post? The party's congressional leaders need to do whatever they must to put this year behind them. Then they need to stop whining. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid should put aside any ill feelings and use the Christmas break to come up with a joint program for 2008.
They could start with the best ideas from their presidential candidates in areas such as health care, education, cures for the ailing economy and poverty-reduction. Agree to bring the same bills to a vote in both houses. Try one more time to change the direction of Iraq policy. If Bush and the Republicans block their efforts, bring all these issues into the campaign. Let the voters break the gridlock.
If Democrats don't make the 2008 election about the Do-Nothing Republicans, the GOP has its own ideas about whom to hold responsible for Washington's paralysis. And if House and Senate Democrats waste their time attacking each other, they will deserve any blame they get next fall.
2011 Tattoos Black and Gray. Jesus
Pagal
06-20 03:45 PM
Hello Hiralal,
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
Indeed! But if the individual 'affordability' is such that you can pay the monthly payments even after moving out of US due to job loss/485 denial, and if the purchase lowers your tax bill, then it may make more sense to buy the house...
Personally, I've always had intentions of buying real estate in US, EU and India.... have it in India, considering it in US and exploring how to buy it in EU... :) Wish had much more 'cash'... :D
more...
pani_6
07-14 12:51 AM
This is a long tern strategy...this wont work this year..you have heard that from the Lofgren herself that no legislation would work this year.....we need to pursue this BUT FIRST letter on page 1 would give some immedeate relief to EB-3..which is
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Actually Version 2 is the latest draft:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?t=20147
Actually Version 2 is the latest draft:
http://immigrationvoice.org/forum/showthread.php?p=262392#post262392
gapala
12-24 08:54 AM
Well said Sanju.
These are those age old arguments that they lay down to justify evil acts. its rediculous
These are those age old arguments that they lay down to justify evil acts. its rediculous
more...
xyzgc
01-01 07:48 PM
earlier even I had views like yours (one of our close friend was killed in 1993 blasts) ,,but think with a cool mind ..war will just lead to loss of more lives, economy everywhere will be devastated and you get more hardcore idiots/fundamentalists ..you don't set a house on fire to kill few rats ..there are changes happening ..pakistan has killed many terrorists on its borders
lets first see where we Indians are at fault ..which did congress (I) remove POTA, why were they (BJP included) advocating more train/bus tours with pakistan, why grant them visas at all ..why can't India fortify its borders (apparently politicians have tons of money for foreign tours and medical visits ..VP singh, kamal nath , there was one politician from Tamil nadu who spent crores and crores in a hospital in texas) ..why can't they give proper salary, weapons, immunity to police force ..why do they give special status to Indian muslims (instead of trying to integrate them in the main stream), why the HAJ subsidy ..I can go on and on ..lets first focus on changing these things before talking about war
Yes, your points are valid. I agree with you. I have the same views and part of the frustration is that the govt doesn't do anything to improve the security. Folks just complain how incompetent the police is, but the police are never paid well, don't have enough arms.
I wonder why they paid Govt employees so less, who will not be corrupt if you are paid so less...now the salaries are better. My dad was a never govt employee but I'm sad that Govt folks were so much underpaid!
lets first see where we Indians are at fault ..which did congress (I) remove POTA, why were they (BJP included) advocating more train/bus tours with pakistan, why grant them visas at all ..why can't India fortify its borders (apparently politicians have tons of money for foreign tours and medical visits ..VP singh, kamal nath , there was one politician from Tamil nadu who spent crores and crores in a hospital in texas) ..why can't they give proper salary, weapons, immunity to police force ..why do they give special status to Indian muslims (instead of trying to integrate them in the main stream), why the HAJ subsidy ..I can go on and on ..lets first focus on changing these things before talking about war
Yes, your points are valid. I agree with you. I have the same views and part of the frustration is that the govt doesn't do anything to improve the security. Folks just complain how incompetent the police is, but the police are never paid well, don't have enough arms.
I wonder why they paid Govt employees so less, who will not be corrupt if you are paid so less...now the salaries are better. My dad was a never govt employee but I'm sad that Govt folks were so much underpaid!
2010 jesus on cross tattoo.
reddymjm
08-05 10:42 AM
I object to your insinuation and gross generalization. It is not your job to ask this question. It upto the law of the land to figure that out and root out dishonesty and deceit.
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
I don't know about rolling flood Just FYI I have an MBA from the US ( a top ) university and have been working with various fortune 100 companies. Currently on EAD.
May be 1% of EB2. Good to know that.
more...
Legal
08-05 06:00 PM
In a poor zoo of India, a lion was frustrated as he was offered not more than 1 kg meat a day. The lion thought its prayers were answered when one US Zoo Manager visited the zoo and requested the zoo management to shift the lion to the US Zoo.
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
The lion was so happy and started thinking of a central A/c environment, a goat or two every day and a US Green Card also.
On its first day after arrival, the lion was offered a big bag, sealed very nicely for breakfast. The lion opened it quickly but was shocked to see that it contained few bananas. Then the lion thought that may be they cared too much for him as they were worried about his stomach as he had recently shifted from India.
The next day the same thing happened. On the third day again the same food bag of bananas was delivered.
The lion was so furious, it stopped the delivery boy and blasted at him, 'Don't you know I am the lion... king of the Jungle..., what's wrong with your management?, what nonsense is this? Why are you delivering bananas to me?'
The delivery boy politely said, 'Sir, I know you are the king of the jungle but ..did you know that you have been brought here on a monkey's visa!!!
Moral: Better to be a Lion in India than a Monkey elsewhere!!!
hair Tatuagem Jesus Tattoo by Pablo
paskal
07-15 03:07 AM
Thanks. I will look into it further when I get a chance. the number of GC granted in a year is complicated- and for the moment I speak offhand so correct me if needed. Till 2005, the recapture clouded the numbers. After that EB3 benefited from a Schedule A recapture that went almost entirely to EB3, a lot to EB3 Philipenes and a good chunk to EB3 India.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
AFAIK last year though, once that was ll over and vertical spillover was implemented, EB2/EB3 Inid should both have got only the strict country quota mandated GC numbers.
Anway- offhand as I said...gotto rum.
sc3,
here are the allotments as posted elsewhere.
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 (EB India allocations)
------------------------------------
EB1 1,266 2,998 6,336 3,156 2,855
EB2 8,536 16,262 16,687 3,720 6,203
EB3 10,647 19,889 23,250 3,006 17,795
Continuing on what i said- till 2005 there was recapture. 2006 reflects what would happen with a vertical spillover for both EB2 and 3 India- about 3,000 GC a year. In 2007, both (esp EB3I) struck pay dirt because everyone became current in July. Under a situation where all categories are current, Gc are distributed exclusively by RD and country quota is thrown out of the window. That is why so many GC were given to EB3 I last year- it makes sense because this is the largest waiting group.
However July 07 is not coming back. If vertical spillover continues, 2006 will become the reality. In that situation the waits for both EB2 and EB3 India will be simply indefinite. Unfortunately for EB3 I, they are indefinite either way- UNLESS we get more GC numbers.
more...
singhsa3
10-01 05:10 PM
God knows what in store for us. Nothing except our determination is in our favor.
hot Tattoo Jesus Face.
retropain
08-11 03:17 PM
Lou may be a star now, but he's an evil star....a person who has not even once brought up the positive contributions of immigrants to this country.
I ask you, have immigrants (or skilled immigrants) have not made a single contribution to this country?
(they surely have made many, but these are not for Mr Dobbs coverage. He is as biased as can be....good CNN is giving Ruben Navarette some coverage now)
I ask you, have immigrants (or skilled immigrants) have not made a single contribution to this country?
(they surely have made many, but these are not for Mr Dobbs coverage. He is as biased as can be....good CNN is giving Ruben Navarette some coverage now)
more...
house jesus tattoos. jesus tattoo
satishku_2000
05-16 06:30 PM
It is very simple -- the 'consulting on the bench' business is ILLEGAL. You can have any opinion on it you wan't, but the bottom line is it is against the law. If you can't meet the legal requirements, you shouldn't be here in the first place.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
What are the SKILLS that are so unique to you in the world? What makes you think everyone is less HONEST and less SKILLED than you are?
I have seen in many cases why companies wants consultants is because consultants are much more skilled than their regular employees and companies are willing to pay a premium for consulting services.
And what do you think about the skilled and HONEST people in this world, finding a job and having an H-1B petition submitted on their behalf, only to see all the H-1Bs go in a single day due to the consultants? My sympathy goes to these people instead of any 'consultant'.
It is amazing that people don't seem to grasp the concept of something being ILLEGAL, and instead seem to rely on some self-perceived logic as to what they can and can't do. Let us focus on the illegal clogging of the system and restore it to the otherwise great visa program it was meant to be.
What are the SKILLS that are so unique to you in the world? What makes you think everyone is less HONEST and less SKILLED than you are?
I have seen in many cases why companies wants consultants is because consultants are much more skilled than their regular employees and companies are willing to pay a premium for consulting services.
tattoo Chest plate Jesus tattoo,
485Mbe4001
07-14 03:16 AM
Why are you so worried about this initiative. Do you think an official at USCIS will read a letter and change the process in one day. If you think so then i wish you had written a letter during the letter campaign, we needed someone with your 'positive' attitude. I have sent letters to everybodies uncle and this is my 8th year waiting in EB3 and 12th year in US. Give us a chance to express our thoughts and wallow in our black hole.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
Nobody cares what qualifications u have. EB1, EB2 and EB3 is what matters at the end of the day.
This letter is utter nonsense. Admins, Moderators...pls stop this nuisance as this will cause internal fighting and end up in nobody receiving any benefits in the near future. If USCIS responds +vely to that letter, then do u think EB2s will keep quiet??? This will cause chaos and thus nobody will get anything out of it. Why is this thread still alive. Pani, the starter of this thread shud be banned for initiating this effort. Shud anything -ve happen to EB2s as an outcome of this, I'm gonna hunt that fellow and sue him for ruining my life.
We as EB3 feel that we got a raw deal due to a change in the intrepretation of a law. There is nothing wrong in sending a letter to express our opinion.
You can send a letter to thank USCIS for helping EB2 and the fact that you have an MS and that makes you great etc...(isnt this what every other post says, disregarding the fact that EB3's have people from top US universities too, there top universities around the world. I guess that you guys or the USCIS thinks that 5yrs consultancy at desi bodyshop with manufactured resume = 2yrs MS at Yale). Nothing against you, let us post a simple letter and get on with our miserable lives.
Nobody cares what qualifications u have. EB1, EB2 and EB3 is what matters at the end of the day.
This letter is utter nonsense. Admins, Moderators...pls stop this nuisance as this will cause internal fighting and end up in nobody receiving any benefits in the near future. If USCIS responds +vely to that letter, then do u think EB2s will keep quiet??? This will cause chaos and thus nobody will get anything out of it. Why is this thread still alive. Pani, the starter of this thread shud be banned for initiating this effort. Shud anything -ve happen to EB2s as an outcome of this, I'm gonna hunt that fellow and sue him for ruining my life.
more...
pictures Religious Tattoo
Macaca
02-13 09:45 AM
When House Changed Rules for Travel, He Lobbied for the Lobbyists (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/12/AR2007021201293_2.html)
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A19
Loopholes in laws and regulations sometimes seem to appear by magic, and often no one wants to claim to be the magician. But one man actually wants credit for a couple of big loopholes in the new ethics rules the House passed last month: John H. Graham IV.
Graham is the president of an organization that could exist only in Washington -- the American Society of Association Executives. In other words, he is the chief lobbyist for lobbyists.
His organization represents 22,000 association executives, from large groups such as the American Medical Association and small ones such as the Barbershop Harmony Society. When any of them are in danger of losing access to lawmakers, Graham, 57, is supposed to intervene.
Which is what he did -- proudly -- as soon as he learned that Democratic leaders wanted to ban travel provided by lobbyists and the entities that employ them. Graham dispatched his own lobbyists and several of his most sympathetic allies to meet with House staffers. Eventually they poked two gigantic holes in the proposed prohibition.
The first opened the way for lobbyists to pay for short trips -- one day as far as the Midwest and two days to the West Coast. The second permits colleges to provide travel to lawmakers without restriction, even though they lobby in Washington a lot. (See the next item.)
Ethics advocates were disappointed. "The better policy is no privately financed travel," said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
But Graham was unabashed. Golf trips to Scotland should be nixed, he said, but not visits to taxpayer-funded programs or to industry-backed seminars. "We didn't want a total ban on travel," Graham said. "We were on top of it from the very beginning."
In fact, he and his lobbyists started their campaign a year ago after then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) first suggested a travel ban. That effort failed partly because of Graham's enterprise.
After the Democratic victory in last year's midterm elections, Graham's lobbyists -- Senior Vice President Jim Clarke and contract lobbyist James W. Rock -- targeted the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and then met with aides to Democratic House leaders Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.).
After one such meeting, Graham learned that the ban would prevent lawmakers from taking trips to colleges to give commencement addresses. He quickly asked the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities to join the crusade.
Graham also recruited other groups with sterling reputations, including the American Heart Association, the YMCA of the USA and the American Cancer Society. They went as a group from office to office on Capitol Hill and made the case that brief trips could not be mistaken for boondoggles, especially when white-hat interests like themselves were footing the bill.
The result: Graham has become Mr. Loophole, winning the exemptions and on track to getting them in the Senate as well.
By Jeffrey H. Birnbaum
Tuesday, February 13, 2007; Page A19
Loopholes in laws and regulations sometimes seem to appear by magic, and often no one wants to claim to be the magician. But one man actually wants credit for a couple of big loopholes in the new ethics rules the House passed last month: John H. Graham IV.
Graham is the president of an organization that could exist only in Washington -- the American Society of Association Executives. In other words, he is the chief lobbyist for lobbyists.
His organization represents 22,000 association executives, from large groups such as the American Medical Association and small ones such as the Barbershop Harmony Society. When any of them are in danger of losing access to lawmakers, Graham, 57, is supposed to intervene.
Which is what he did -- proudly -- as soon as he learned that Democratic leaders wanted to ban travel provided by lobbyists and the entities that employ them. Graham dispatched his own lobbyists and several of his most sympathetic allies to meet with House staffers. Eventually they poked two gigantic holes in the proposed prohibition.
The first opened the way for lobbyists to pay for short trips -- one day as far as the Midwest and two days to the West Coast. The second permits colleges to provide travel to lawmakers without restriction, even though they lobby in Washington a lot. (See the next item.)
Ethics advocates were disappointed. "The better policy is no privately financed travel," said Meredith McGehee of the Campaign Legal Center.
But Graham was unabashed. Golf trips to Scotland should be nixed, he said, but not visits to taxpayer-funded programs or to industry-backed seminars. "We didn't want a total ban on travel," Graham said. "We were on top of it from the very beginning."
In fact, he and his lobbyists started their campaign a year ago after then-House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) first suggested a travel ban. That effort failed partly because of Graham's enterprise.
After the Democratic victory in last year's midterm elections, Graham's lobbyists -- Senior Vice President Jim Clarke and contract lobbyist James W. Rock -- targeted the staff of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (Calif.) and then met with aides to Democratic House leaders Steny H. Hoyer (Md.), Rahm Emanuel (Ill.) and James E. Clyburn (S.C.).
After one such meeting, Graham learned that the ban would prevent lawmakers from taking trips to colleges to give commencement addresses. He quickly asked the Association of American Colleges and Universities and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities to join the crusade.
Graham also recruited other groups with sterling reputations, including the American Heart Association, the YMCA of the USA and the American Cancer Society. They went as a group from office to office on Capitol Hill and made the case that brief trips could not be mistaken for boondoggles, especially when white-hat interests like themselves were footing the bill.
The result: Graham has become Mr. Loophole, winning the exemptions and on track to getting them in the Senate as well.
dresses cure: tattoo quot;Jesusquot; on
Ramba
09-26 03:24 PM
Employment based GC will exist whoever wins. CIR or any other reform that increses number of immigrants per year (legal/illegal/ammnisity/point system/high skilled/low skilled) may not be possible in new administration (BO/Mcsamebush), unless economy bounce back. Immigration is tiny bit of the big problem facing this country. If the current economny lead to depression/recession what is the use of having GC/USC?
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
Both are politicans their first ambittion is the office. Country first is simply bull. However, I think BO, is the right choice at this momnet. as atleast he is having professional approch in every problem. He is having little bit socialism. I think economy will boucnce back in BO admin, which is the important issue at this point.
more...
makeup gumbi jesus tattoo
Rolling_Flood
08-05 07:42 AM
What i mean is: Porting should not be an option based on the LENGTH OF WAITING TIME in EB3 status. That is what it is most commonly used for, thus causing a serious disadvantage to EB2 filers (who did not port).
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
You mean to say EB-2 is only meant for first time EB-2 filers, and if a person ever filed under EB-3 should not be considered to file under EB-2 again ? Are yo a 'Jamindaar' ? What you are trying to convince people is only those people who are were born rich should be allowed to live in big houses and people who were ever middle should not be allowed in big houses...Wah Wah what a idea...
"Employment Preference Categories" have very real legal groundings, and i intend to challenge the porting rule based on those facts.
If someone is unsatisfied with their EB3 application, they are more than welcome to start a fresh EB2 or EB1 application process, rather than try the porting subterfuge.
I hope i have made my point clear? Thanks.
You mean to say EB-2 is only meant for first time EB-2 filers, and if a person ever filed under EB-3 should not be considered to file under EB-2 again ? Are yo a 'Jamindaar' ? What you are trying to convince people is only those people who are were born rich should be allowed to live in big houses and people who were ever middle should not be allowed in big houses...Wah Wah what a idea...
girlfriend Religious Jesus Tattoos. Jesus
sroyc
10-01 11:38 AM
Irrespective of who wins, the state of the economy will decide whether immigrant friendly bills will be passed by the Congress. When the times are good, when most Americans are happy with their jobs, very few people will spend their time opposing bills that favor us.
I've a very pessimistic view of the next 2 years. Most of the growth in the last 6-7 years was fueled by debt. Bailout or not, there will be more regulation on lending practices and consumers will find it harder to use their credit cards or home equity line of credit to buy things they really don't need. By some estimates, consumer spending accounts for 60-70% of the GDP, so you can imagine that any slowdown in spending will have a significant effect. I think that recovery from this downturn will be slow and painful. The only thing that can give the economy a huge boost is rapid growth in a new industry like green energy. It won't be easy to switch to green technology because of the strong hold of lobbyists from traditional energy companies over the Congress and it'll take a lot of political will and government spending to spur the green revolution. Will that happen under Obama or McCain? I've no clue. At least Obama has a plan to invest 15 billion dollars a year on renewable energy for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for another immigration bill. It's time to explore opportunities in other countries - India/Singapore/China/U.K./Canada/Australia.
I've a very pessimistic view of the next 2 years. Most of the growth in the last 6-7 years was fueled by debt. Bailout or not, there will be more regulation on lending practices and consumers will find it harder to use their credit cards or home equity line of credit to buy things they really don't need. By some estimates, consumer spending accounts for 60-70% of the GDP, so you can imagine that any slowdown in spending will have a significant effect. I think that recovery from this downturn will be slow and painful. The only thing that can give the economy a huge boost is rapid growth in a new industry like green energy. It won't be easy to switch to green technology because of the strong hold of lobbyists from traditional energy companies over the Congress and it'll take a lot of political will and government spending to spur the green revolution. Will that happen under Obama or McCain? I've no clue. At least Obama has a plan to invest 15 billion dollars a year on renewable energy for the next 10 years.
Meanwhile, I'm not holding my breath for another immigration bill. It's time to explore opportunities in other countries - India/Singapore/China/U.K./Canada/Australia.
hairstyles Jesus
alisa
01-04 05:35 PM
No body is going to be caught and there is going to be another attack in India and then the Bombay will become the past and we need to forget the past and we have to start all over again.
Then you would probably be right, that this is the active policy of Pakistan, and I would probably be wrong, that these are non-state actors that are the remnants of the past.
Then you would probably be right, that this is the active policy of Pakistan, and I would probably be wrong, that these are non-state actors that are the remnants of the past.
Macaca
09-29 04:06 PM
A Day in the Life: Restaurateurs Hit the Hill (http://rollcall.com/issues/53_34/news/20220-1.html) By Anna Palmer | ROLL CALL, September 27, 2007
Like hundreds of Washington, D.C., trade associations that shuttle their members to town every year for a bit of precious face time with lawmakers and staff, the National Restaurant Association has its once-a-year shot at putting a live face on its most pressing concerns.
On Wednesday, the NRA was ready. Its 700 delegates, who had spent the day before at the Grand Hyatt prepping their talking points, fanned out over the Capitol for 332 meetings, including some 284 lawmakers.
That may seem like an extraordinary show of force. But restaurant owners, like real estate agents and bankers and even florists, all share something in common: a powerful membership presence in every Congressional district.
Still, the results of the day, like many constituent experiences, were decidedly mixed, as the restaurateurs touched on some of Congress' most sensitive subjects: comprehensive immigration reform, food safety and lowering the number of years it takes to depreciate their buildings.
Members arrived by state associations and tended to concentrate on their state delegations.
For the Pennsylvania group, 8 a.m. Wednesday was go time. With 20 restaurateurs swarming the Capitol, they were meeting once again with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whom they see as an ally on immigration reform, and freshman Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a first for many of them. That's in addition to 14 of the 19 Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.
Arming themselves with the facts that restaurants are the second-largest private-sector employer, the 2,100-member association wanted answers, mainly about immigration and what Congress is going to do.
As the lobbyists mingled outside Casey's office, for many it was a time to reacquaint themselves with old friends and competitors. Most were loose; they weren't novices on Capitol Hill. They've been here before and were ready to get right to the point.
Led by state President James Flanigan, an intense, impeccably dressed man who has spent his entire career in the food service industry, the group was realistic about their role in national politics.
"The NRA is like the NFL. [The state restaurant associations] are all the backups of the NFL," said Joseph DiSalvo, owner of DiSalvo's Station Restaurant and incoming president of the state association, as they waited in the hallway to meet with Casey.
But while lobbying here is important, the Pennsylvania association, which is headquartered in in the state capital, Harrisburg, sees its role as more intimately involved in state-level politicking than federal.
"Our mission is Harrisburg," said Flanigan. "They can do a lot more damage to us."
Currently, for example, the city of Philadelphia is deciding whether to require trans-fat labeling on menus, which Flanigan describes as "feel-good legislation" that doesn't really work, and Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, which is considering a 10 percent drink tax.
"More and more issues are driven down from the federal to the state and now the local level" Patrick Conway, the state association's top staffer, said.
The group also is dealing with a proposed statewide smoking ban, which it favors. But, the restaurant industry hit a roadblock earlier this year after the tavern association and casinos lobbied heavily for exemptions.
"My own opinion is I hate the government telling me what to do," said Flanigan, of the smoking ban. "But exemptions put us at a competitive disadvantage. It's the old story of leveling the playing field."
After filing into the office adjacent to Casey's main entrance in the Russell building, the group settled in around a long boardroom table, with others perched around the walls.
But there's no Casey. Instead, the lobbyists had to make due with a staffer who works on many of the issues, including immigration reform.
The group has been prepped by lobbyists from the D.C. office of the National Restaurant Association to stay on their talking points: immigration reform, food safety and the restaurant depreciation tax.
"For immigration the primary goal is to express our frustration with the inability of Congress to tackle this obviously significant issue," said Brendan Flanagan, the NRA's vice president of federal relations, in an interview.
Bill Baker, an NRA board member and Pennsylvania restaurateur, led off the discussion, pointing to how comprehensive immigration reform is important not only to their bottom line, but also in making sure employers are on the right side of the law.
He followed up with horror stories of under-staffed restaurants that can only seat half the restaurant because there aren't enough workers.
Baker's frustration is echoed by fellow association members, including Michael Passalacqua, former state association president and owner of Angelo's Italian restaurant in Washington, Pa.
"We are not document experts," Passalacqua said. "The only way the restaurant industry is going to be staffed is a matter of stealing each other's employees."
With just minutes left before the staffer had to exit for another meeting, the delegates had little time to address food safety and depreciation.
As the lobbyists left Casey's office, many are frustrated about not getting more specific answers about when immigration reform is going to happen. But, they held out hope for Specter, whom they see as a real advocate on immigration reform.
After trucking to the Hart Senate Office Building, the delegation was led into Specter's office for the much-anticipated meeting. For many of the delegates who have been attending the national conference for many years, it wasn't the first time they've met with the Senator.
Less than 10 minutes after Specter joined them, they exited the meeting and frustration from some of the members mounted.
Even Conway, the state association chief executive who so far has kept a stiff upper lip all morning helping coordinate the delegates and keep everyone on message, diplomatically explained that Specter "didn't have much time."
But with the meeting so short, and no one from the delegation given the opportunity to ask a single question, others are slightly more frazzled.
"The time frame was just so small, we couldn't get any information. I'm disappointed because I had a lot questions. There's no time with only 10 minutes," Passalacqua said.
Like hundreds of Washington, D.C., trade associations that shuttle their members to town every year for a bit of precious face time with lawmakers and staff, the National Restaurant Association has its once-a-year shot at putting a live face on its most pressing concerns.
On Wednesday, the NRA was ready. Its 700 delegates, who had spent the day before at the Grand Hyatt prepping their talking points, fanned out over the Capitol for 332 meetings, including some 284 lawmakers.
That may seem like an extraordinary show of force. But restaurant owners, like real estate agents and bankers and even florists, all share something in common: a powerful membership presence in every Congressional district.
Still, the results of the day, like many constituent experiences, were decidedly mixed, as the restaurateurs touched on some of Congress' most sensitive subjects: comprehensive immigration reform, food safety and lowering the number of years it takes to depreciate their buildings.
Members arrived by state associations and tended to concentrate on their state delegations.
For the Pennsylvania group, 8 a.m. Wednesday was go time. With 20 restaurateurs swarming the Capitol, they were meeting once again with Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.), whom they see as an ally on immigration reform, and freshman Sen. Bob Casey (D-Pa.), a first for many of them. That's in addition to 14 of the 19 Members of the Pennsylvania Congressional delegation.
Arming themselves with the facts that restaurants are the second-largest private-sector employer, the 2,100-member association wanted answers, mainly about immigration and what Congress is going to do.
As the lobbyists mingled outside Casey's office, for many it was a time to reacquaint themselves with old friends and competitors. Most were loose; they weren't novices on Capitol Hill. They've been here before and were ready to get right to the point.
Led by state President James Flanigan, an intense, impeccably dressed man who has spent his entire career in the food service industry, the group was realistic about their role in national politics.
"The NRA is like the NFL. [The state restaurant associations] are all the backups of the NFL," said Joseph DiSalvo, owner of DiSalvo's Station Restaurant and incoming president of the state association, as they waited in the hallway to meet with Casey.
But while lobbying here is important, the Pennsylvania association, which is headquartered in in the state capital, Harrisburg, sees its role as more intimately involved in state-level politicking than federal.
"Our mission is Harrisburg," said Flanigan. "They can do a lot more damage to us."
Currently, for example, the city of Philadelphia is deciding whether to require trans-fat labeling on menus, which Flanigan describes as "feel-good legislation" that doesn't really work, and Allegheny County, which includes Pittsburgh, which is considering a 10 percent drink tax.
"More and more issues are driven down from the federal to the state and now the local level" Patrick Conway, the state association's top staffer, said.
The group also is dealing with a proposed statewide smoking ban, which it favors. But, the restaurant industry hit a roadblock earlier this year after the tavern association and casinos lobbied heavily for exemptions.
"My own opinion is I hate the government telling me what to do," said Flanigan, of the smoking ban. "But exemptions put us at a competitive disadvantage. It's the old story of leveling the playing field."
After filing into the office adjacent to Casey's main entrance in the Russell building, the group settled in around a long boardroom table, with others perched around the walls.
But there's no Casey. Instead, the lobbyists had to make due with a staffer who works on many of the issues, including immigration reform.
The group has been prepped by lobbyists from the D.C. office of the National Restaurant Association to stay on their talking points: immigration reform, food safety and the restaurant depreciation tax.
"For immigration the primary goal is to express our frustration with the inability of Congress to tackle this obviously significant issue," said Brendan Flanagan, the NRA's vice president of federal relations, in an interview.
Bill Baker, an NRA board member and Pennsylvania restaurateur, led off the discussion, pointing to how comprehensive immigration reform is important not only to their bottom line, but also in making sure employers are on the right side of the law.
He followed up with horror stories of under-staffed restaurants that can only seat half the restaurant because there aren't enough workers.
Baker's frustration is echoed by fellow association members, including Michael Passalacqua, former state association president and owner of Angelo's Italian restaurant in Washington, Pa.
"We are not document experts," Passalacqua said. "The only way the restaurant industry is going to be staffed is a matter of stealing each other's employees."
With just minutes left before the staffer had to exit for another meeting, the delegates had little time to address food safety and depreciation.
As the lobbyists left Casey's office, many are frustrated about not getting more specific answers about when immigration reform is going to happen. But, they held out hope for Specter, whom they see as a real advocate on immigration reform.
After trucking to the Hart Senate Office Building, the delegation was led into Specter's office for the much-anticipated meeting. For many of the delegates who have been attending the national conference for many years, it wasn't the first time they've met with the Senator.
Less than 10 minutes after Specter joined them, they exited the meeting and frustration from some of the members mounted.
Even Conway, the state association chief executive who so far has kept a stiff upper lip all morning helping coordinate the delegates and keep everyone on message, diplomatically explained that Specter "didn't have much time."
But with the meeting so short, and no one from the delegation given the opportunity to ask a single question, others are slightly more frazzled.
"The time frame was just so small, we couldn't get any information. I'm disappointed because I had a lot questions. There's no time with only 10 minutes," Passalacqua said.
Macaca
12-27 06:59 PM
India chasing a U.N. chimera (http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/op-ed/article995760.ece) By K. S. DAKSHINA MURTHY | The Hindu
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
In recent years it has become standard practice for the Indian media to ask visiting foreign dignitaries where they stand on New Delhi's claim to a permanent seat in the UNSC. If the answers are in the affirmative, there are smiles all round and the glow is then transmitted to readers or viewers as the case may be.
Among the Permanent Five in the Council, the United Kingdom has long affirmed support, so have France and Russia. China has remained non-committal. So the United States' stand was deemed crucial. When President Barack Obama, during his recent visit, backed India for a permanent seat, the joy was palpable. The media went to town as if it were just a matter of time before India joined the select group of the World's almighty. The happiness lasted a few days until the first tranche of WikiLeaks punctured the mood somewhat.
The revelation of U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's classified whisper, describing India as a self-appointed front-runner exposed Washington's innermost thoughts on the subject. Though the embarrassing leak was subsequently sought to be played down, it opened the curtain to a larger truth which is that the U.S. and the other four have never really been interested in real reforms to the Security Council.
Public pronouncements, positive affirmations and slap-on-the-back relationships don't necessarily translate into action on the ground.
Reforms
Jakob Silas Lund of the Centre for U.N. Reform Education states a few individuals within the process believe that some of the Permanent Five countries “are more than happy to see reform moving at near-zero-velocity speed”.
The reforms are open to interpretation. Broadly, they mean democratisation of the Security Council to make it representative and in tune with the contemporary world. This, for some, means more permanent members. The Group of four — India, Brazil, Japan and Germany — has been the most vocal in demanding it be included.
What is surprising, especially where India is concerned, is the hope and optimism that it is heading towards a permanent seat. In reality, a committee set up by the United Nations 17 years ago to go into reforms shows little signs of progress.
The first meeting was held in 1994 of the U.N. group, a mouthful, called the “Open-Ended Working Group on the Question of Equitable Representation and Increase in the Membership of the Security Council and Other Matters Related to the Security Council”. Until now, this group has completed four rounds of negotiations, just on preliminaries.
A brief peek into the past will make it clear that the addition of more veto-wielding permanent members to the Council is a veritable pipe dream. For any amendment to the U.N. charter, two-thirds of the General Assembly needs to acquiesce. This may be possible but the next requirement, that of ratification by the Permanent Five, is the real obstacle.
Since the formation of the United Nations in 1945, there have been only a handful of meetings of the Security Council to discuss the original charter, and even that, merely to discuss minor amendments. One of some significance came about in 1965 when the membership of temporary, non-veto powered countries in the Council was increased from six to 10 and the number of votes required to pass any decision increased to nine from seven.
As academic and U.N. commentator Thomas G. Weiss wrote in the Washington Quarterly, “Most governments rhetorically support the mindless call for equity, specifically by increasing membership and eliminating the veto. Yet, no progress has been made on these numerical or procedural changes because absolutely no consensus exists about the exact shape of the Security Council or the elimination of the veto.”
The argument for a bigger, more representative Council is undoubtedly valid but the issue is who will implement it and how.
U.S. is the prime mover
In today's global equation the U.S. is the acknowledged prime mover. It has already had to sweat it out to convince the other four members to go with it on several issues, like the sanctions against Iran. If more countries are allowed to join the Council the difficulties for U.S. interests are obvious, even if those included are vetted for their closeness to Washington.
Real and effective reforms should have meant democratisation of the Security Council to reflect the aspirations of all its members. Ideally, this should mean removal of permanency and the veto power to be replaced with a rotating membership for all countries, where each one big or small, powerful or weak gets to sit for a fixed term in the hallowed seats of the Council. This is unthinkable within the existing framework of the United Nations. At the heart of the issue is the reluctance of the Permanent Five to give up the prized veto power.
The situation is paradoxical given that democracy is being touted, pushed and inflicted by the U.S. across the world. But democracy seems to end where the Security Council begins. The rest of the world has no choice but to bow to its decisions. The consequences for defying the Council can be terrifying as was experienced by Saddam Hussein's Iraq through the 1990's. Iran is now on the receiving end for its defiance on the nuclear issue.
Not just that, the credibility of the Security Council itself took a beating over its inability to prevent the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003. Having failed to convince France, Russia and China to vote for invading Iraq, the U.S. went alone. The Council was reduced to a bystander. It failed to fulfil its primary task, that of ensuring security — to Iraq.
What this also implies is that Council or no Council, in today's unipolar world, the U.S. will go with what it decides and no one can stop it. This has been the case particularly since the end of the Cold War. “With a U.S. global presence as great as that of any empire in history, Security Council efforts to control U.S. actions are beginning to resemble the Roman Senate's efforts to control the emperor,” writes Weiss.
Instead of trying to clamber onto a patently unfair arrangement it would have made more sense if the four self-appointed front-runners along with the rest of the world had demanded a more equitable and representative Council.
To achieve this, academic and U.N. expert Erik Voeten suggests pressure tactics to counter veto power. One tactic is for countries en bloc to ignore the decisions taken in the Security Council. Another is for Germany and Japan, which are among the largest contributors to the United Nations, to turn off the tap.
Despite this, if nothing happens, countries may have no choice but to look for, or at least threaten to float, an alternative U.N.-like organisation whose structure would be more in tandem with the contemporary world. Idealistic, perhaps. But this should force the Permanent Five to sit up and take real notice.
K.S. Dakshina Murthy was formerly Editor of Al Jazeera based in Doha, Qatar
