Macaca
12-07 10:30 AM
Holding the Hungry Hostage (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/07/opinion/07fri2.html) NY Editorial, December 7, 2007
It is a travesty that the fates of some 35 million Americans who need food aid are tied to the farm bill, which comes up every five years. The House passed an inadequate version last summer, and the Senate has failed to advance its own. It is time to ask why feeding the hungry must include a trough for multibillion-dollar agribusiness.
As it has pressed to keep its subsidies, about $26 billion in the current bill, agribusiness has contributed $415 million to federal political campaigns since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The hungry don’t have much of a lobby. But those who cannot consistently put food on the table need the help promised in the bill, including more than $4 billion in improvements in the food stamp program and for emergency assistance. If the aid remains in the farm bill, and if it remains in a logjam, aid would continue at current, inadequate levels.
Food stamps regularly help 26 million people get something to eat. But the previous farm bill did not peg benefits to inflation, so as food prices have skyrocketed, families who were just barely getting by are now in a much worse place. Some 800,000 food stamp recipients — disproportionately elderly or disabled — are being told to make due on a minimum benefit of $10 per month. That amount has remained unchanged in 30 years.
As The Times recently reported, food banks and soup kitchens across the nation are being depleted by demand so overwhelming that the needy are being turned away, or given help so minimal, it is hardly worth the energy expended to get it.
Washington needs to do better. The Senate could start by rallying around the sensible legislation sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. It would replace crop supports with an insurance program to cover actual losses, and put the savings, potentially billions of dollars, to better use, including for food aid.
Or the Congress could make a bold statement and begin to restructure funding. It could get money to food banks faster if it came out of any bill but the farm bill.
The Bush administration has correctly opposed the excesses of the farm subsidies program, but it could do more. It could finance additional and immediate food assistance by dipping deeper into money culled from customs receipts to support farm and nutrition programs.
Since their beginnings, hunger relief and nutrition programs have been inextricably tied to helping farmers. That may have made sense once. But as recent maneuvers on the farm bill have shown, it no longer works.
Republicans — by far the biggest beneficiaries of agribusiness largess — are using the advantage of being a bare minority to try to attach a flurry of amendments on immigration, taxes and any other issue but the desperate one at hand. Farm state senators look the other way so a bill, warts and all, can get done.
They need to put America’s hungry first.
Senators Reach Tentative Farm Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602408.html) By MARY CLARE JALONICK | Associated Press, December 6, 2007
Senate ends farm bill impasse, may pass in days (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602662.html) By Charles Abbott | Reuters, December 6, 2007
It is a travesty that the fates of some 35 million Americans who need food aid are tied to the farm bill, which comes up every five years. The House passed an inadequate version last summer, and the Senate has failed to advance its own. It is time to ask why feeding the hungry must include a trough for multibillion-dollar agribusiness.
As it has pressed to keep its subsidies, about $26 billion in the current bill, agribusiness has contributed $415 million to federal political campaigns since 1990, according to the Center for Responsive Politics. The hungry don’t have much of a lobby. But those who cannot consistently put food on the table need the help promised in the bill, including more than $4 billion in improvements in the food stamp program and for emergency assistance. If the aid remains in the farm bill, and if it remains in a logjam, aid would continue at current, inadequate levels.
Food stamps regularly help 26 million people get something to eat. But the previous farm bill did not peg benefits to inflation, so as food prices have skyrocketed, families who were just barely getting by are now in a much worse place. Some 800,000 food stamp recipients — disproportionately elderly or disabled — are being told to make due on a minimum benefit of $10 per month. That amount has remained unchanged in 30 years.
As The Times recently reported, food banks and soup kitchens across the nation are being depleted by demand so overwhelming that the needy are being turned away, or given help so minimal, it is hardly worth the energy expended to get it.
Washington needs to do better. The Senate could start by rallying around the sensible legislation sponsored by Senators Frank Lautenberg, Democrat of New Jersey, and Richard Lugar, Republican of Indiana. It would replace crop supports with an insurance program to cover actual losses, and put the savings, potentially billions of dollars, to better use, including for food aid.
Or the Congress could make a bold statement and begin to restructure funding. It could get money to food banks faster if it came out of any bill but the farm bill.
The Bush administration has correctly opposed the excesses of the farm subsidies program, but it could do more. It could finance additional and immediate food assistance by dipping deeper into money culled from customs receipts to support farm and nutrition programs.
Since their beginnings, hunger relief and nutrition programs have been inextricably tied to helping farmers. That may have made sense once. But as recent maneuvers on the farm bill have shown, it no longer works.
Republicans — by far the biggest beneficiaries of agribusiness largess — are using the advantage of being a bare minority to try to attach a flurry of amendments on immigration, taxes and any other issue but the desperate one at hand. Farm state senators look the other way so a bill, warts and all, can get done.
They need to put America’s hungry first.
Senators Reach Tentative Farm Deal (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602408.html) By MARY CLARE JALONICK | Associated Press, December 6, 2007
Senate ends farm bill impasse, may pass in days (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/06/AR2007120602662.html) By Charles Abbott | Reuters, December 6, 2007
wallpaper LOOKS LIKE A MEGATRON TURD.
sina
01-10 09:33 AM
I have a approved I140 from my current employer with prority date of may 2006. I had applied a labor long time back in Jan 2004 with another employer. This labor is approved now. Can I apply another I140 with the old empoyer without revoking the one that I have with the current employer as I want to stay with the current employer till I get the new I140 approved? Will applying the I140 with the old affect my current I140 approval.
Please help, I have to decide soon.
Please help, I have to decide soon.
zoozee
04-17 10:27 PM
Has anybody directly received any communication from BEC regarding the pending LC application? I just received one and am not sure if that is the norm?
Regards
Regards
2011 The toy takes shape of a quot;Mad
Macaca
11-01 05:36 PM
Democrats Again Look to Change GOP Motions; After Defeats, Leaders Studying Ways to Neuter Republicans' Motions to Recommit (http://www.rollcall.com/issues/53_52/news/20763-1.html) By Jennifer Yachnin | ROLL CALL STAFF, October 31, 2007
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
Exasperated over Republicans' continued efforts - and occasional success - in thwarting the House floor schedule, Democratic leaders acknowledged Tuesday they are reviewing the chamber's rules to determine how to curb the minority's ability to put up roadblocks at critical moments in the legislative process.
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter (D) said the committee's Democrats have begun meeting with both current and former Parliamentarians to discuss the chamber's rules and potential changes.
The New York lawmaker said those discussions have focused in part on the motion to recommit - one of the few procedural items in the minority party's toolbox that allows them to offer legislative alternatives when a bill hits the floor, and that Republicans have used to force difficult votes on Democrats or prompted legislation to be pulled from the floor - as well as other procedures, which she declined to detail.
Slaughter said no timeline exists for the review or potential alterations, however. "Nothing is imminent. We want to take our time and do it right," she said.
But one Democratic lawmaker, who asked not to be identified, said the majority is considering neutering the motion-to-recommit process and converting it to little more than a last-chance amendment for the minority party.
Under current House rules, the minority's motion can effectively shelve legislation through minor alterations to the language of their motion - specifically designating for a bill to be returned to its committee "promptly," rather than the usual "forthwith."
Republican leaders have used that strategy to force Democrats to either vote against measures they would otherwise support or vote to kill their own bill. Earlier this month, the GOP used that procedure to target a bill governing federal wiretapping and surveillance programs, prompting Democrats to scrub an expected vote.
Another Democratic lawmaker, who also is familiar with discussions and asked not to be identified because of the sensitive nature of those conversations, said that is only one option under consideration.
"We don't want to limit the minority's ability to have legitimate motions to recommit," the Democrat said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) railed against Republicans' use of that particular tactic at his weekly press conference Tuesday, echoing complaints Democrats have raised off-and-on since March.
"The Republicans continue to use the motion to recommit for political purposes, not substantive purposes. Substantive purposes would be trying to change policy. For the most part, what they do with their motions to recommit are not change policy, but try to construct difficult political votes for Members," Hoyer said. "We understand that. To some degree, we did that as well. So it is not surprising."
While Hoyer acknowledged that Democrats had at times employed the same approach in the past, he criticized Republicans for using the method 22 times thus far in the 110th Congress, asserting that Democrats used the tactic only four times between 1995 and 1998.
"This is a game. It is a relatively cynical game," Hoyer added. "That doesn't mean it is not an effective game and causes questions. So we are trying to deal with that."
Democrats earlier had sought to alter the House rules on motions to recommit in May - an unusual step, given that the chamber's rules are rarely reopened mid-session - but Republicans rebelled on the House floor, and Democratic leaders agreed to forgo the changes, at least temporarily.
Democratic leaders suggested in August that they planned to offer legislation on the House floor aimed at dissuading Republicans from offering contentious procedural amendments tied to such hot-button issues as immigration. At the same time, Democrats hoped to provide insulation to their own Members with a separate vote on those topics, but have yet to produce any such resolutions.
Republicans have succeeded in winning 21 motions to recommit - the majority of which would not shelve the legislation they amend - in the past 10 months, a point that President Bush praised in a Tuesday meeting at the White House with Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) and Minority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), according to a GOP aide.
"Republicans and Democrats alike have lived under the very same germaneness rules since 1822, and changing them won't solve the majority's inherent inability to govern," Boehner spokesman Brian Kennedy said. "This isn't a question of rules, it's one of competence."
more...
chrisclick
08-22 08:46 AM
Nice. Like the last one :)
Acm928
01-22 11:25 PM
Hi, I was wondering how long it is going to take me to get my citizenship. I received my permanent residency when I was 17. I was told I could have gotten my citizenship then but since I married a military personnel I wasn't sure if I was still eligible. Can I get my citizenship now because I received my "green card" under age or would I still have to wait 3 years being married to a U.S Citizen? Can I get my citizenship faster being married to a military personnel?
more...
h1-b forever
09-14 08:53 AM
includes all
2010 Transformers as far as I know
Mikoers
February 19th, 2004, 07:47 AM
The images from the Nikon D2H - Canon 1D and 1DS shoout have now been posted.
http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=74&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Thanks, I did not expect much of a response. I know which is better<g>.
Mike
http://www.dphoto.us/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=74&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0
Thanks, I did not expect much of a response. I know which is better<g>.
Mike