Minggu, 10 Juli 2011

american idol contestants 2009

images contestants. american idol american idol contestants 2009. Lacey Brown in quot;American Idol
  • Lacey Brown in quot;American Idol



  • bajrangbali
    06-05 11:33 AM
    Good analysis there dude!
    While no one can predict future, the least we could do is prepare ourselves for good and bad times.
    IMO people should look at purchasing only if these conditions apply:

    1) Current rent payment is more than mortgage+prop tax+other monthly fees for new home
    2) Homes in relatively stable areas (where unemployment is not too high, diversity of job opportunities)
    3) Homes whose prices have not risen significantly in the past 5yrs (anything > 40% since 2001..please stay away)
    4) Planning to stay in the house for a MIN 2yrs

    One would argue why buy now if it might go lower...
    if above conditions are met..it would be a relatively safe buy and aboveall...people remember... time does not wait for anyone...we grow older everyday..make a decision regarding what we need for us and our family within the reasonable limits...go for it and enjoy it..
    an old friend of mine always says...live life..love life...be life
    and i believe she is right..





    wallpaper Lacey Brown in quot;American Idol american idol contestants 2009. March 16th, 2009 by core
  • March 16th, 2009 by core



  • pmb76
    07-14 04:29 AM
    IV core,

    Pani's letter completely undermines IV's initiatives. IV has to move in one single direction not in 10. If this guy wants to send a letter he should not be allowed to send it using IV's banner. Please request this guy to either stop this letter campaign or NOT use IV's name. I do not understand how jokers like Pani are tolerated by IV. IV must disown this guy and his dangerous campaign.





    american idol contestants 2009. American Idol: Season 8
  • American Idol: Season 8



  • Pineapple
    11-09 02:20 PM
    Not to split hairs, but I do not think Lou Dobbs is really "Republican" as far as the core political philosophy of GOP goes, and the same goes for Tancerdo et all. All are extremist nuts and never had any mainstream following. But there is a difference: Forget the fact that he is a pathetic opportunist who switched from financial analysis to immigrant bashing simply because the latter generated more ratings than the former. He positions himself as a anti-globalization nativist, and would find more sympathizers in the loony left rather than the loony right. Tancerdo etc are thinly disguised white-supremacists / nativists and their natural base is the far far right Ku Klux Klan nuts.

    In any case, there is nothing special about this election which teaches us to ignore the idiots. Most americans are distinctly uncomfortable with the rants of these guys and therefore Lou dobbs would always remain irrelevant. The world moves not because Lou says it does.. it moves regardless.





    2011 March 16th, 2009 by core american idol contestants 2009. makeup American Idol
  • makeup American Idol



  • qplearn
    11-15 09:29 AM
    There is no change in his strategy; but what is interesting is: he is now claiming that many of the new (freshmen) Democrats are in fact "Lou Dobb Democrats." :) Is he suggesting that they support his stand?

    He is also claiming now that he never opposed legal immigration beyond the 1 million that enters every year. He must have forgotten about his daily telecast on H1Bs (in 2003-2004), whose number is well within the limits of 1 million. What was he screaming about then?

    Lou Dobbs is losing it, I think, which can only be a good sign. But if CNN were to fire him, that will be the best thing to happen.



    more...


    american idol contestants 2009. Which American Idol
  • Which American Idol



  • mpadapa
    09-26 10:14 AM
    Yes, I would also love to see Sen Obama as President. I have no doubt in my mind that a Harvard graduate can get USA out of this economic turmoil. Obama presidency comes with a price for high-skilled immigrants because of the influence of Sen. Durbin on Sen. Obama on EB immigration issues. Past proposals from Sen. Durbin has scared the heck out of EB folks. If there is any changes to AC21 law like portability and H1 extensions, then many high-skilled immigrants might be sent packing because they cannot maintain status.

    I have been in this country for almost 10 years and still have a long way to go before I get my green card. A Green Card system that was devised for a wait time of few years, has been clogged and is taking decades for people to get Green Cards. On top of it if the rules of the game is changed (like that proposed in CIR), I certainly don't want to get into this black hole queue again. If I have to start over my GC process again I would rather start it else where other than USA. I am strongly inclined to start my Canadian PR process if I don't see any process improvement in the GC process in the next year. Decades of waiting for a Green card has taken the edge out of my creativity and innovative spirit. It has causes me to compromise on professional ambitions. Even after 10 years of wait for this never ending ordeal, I still have to spend thousands of dollars every year on immigration expenses. I still cannot commit to buying a house and settling down because of the uncertain future due to Green Card limbo.

    The luke warm reception to Lofgren bills by the Republican's have shown what we can expect if Sen. McCain becomes the President. Why did the so called maverick who supposedly supports immigration let the Lofgren bills die in the committees, while Republicans filibustered the bill in all the markup sessions. Sen. McCain has forgotten the word immigration after he has become the Republican nominee.





    american idol contestants 2009. American Idol contestants
  • American Idol contestants



  • vdixit
    03-24 04:31 PM
    Bought a house, sold it. Changed jobs, moved cities, planning to buy a new house.
    I dont think renting (flushing money down the landlords toilet) is a wise idea if you plan to live in this country for a long time.
    Go for it. PLan these things according to your family's needs.
    Cheers.



    more...


    american idol contestants 2009. American Idol Top 3
  • American Idol Top 3



  • sledge_hammer
    06-05 05:53 PM
    Unless one is a day trader, he/she probably has a real job (no offense to day traders :D), and only invests regularly through his/her employer sponsored retirement account or if she is self employed, she has an IRA account, to take advantage of dollar cost averaging. I am the latter btw! It used to be that 10 years was what was considered to measure the performance of any investment, and even though that trend has changed now, let's just stick with the 10 year yard stick.

    Let's take an example of Joe. Let's assume he has 30K in his pocket for investment. His goal is hard set to invest right now and cash out in 10 years. Let's find out where he stands at the end of 10 years in the two situations, rent and own.

    -------- I am going to spend the next 10 mins crunching some numbers and I will get back to you :D. You are free to post your calculations here ---------------

    Now we are getting into another different fun topic - how does a real estate "investment" compare with other forms of investment.

    1. Leverage = speculation = risk. By taking the leverage and buying the house - you lock in a 3-5% return and a lot of risk (for a 200k house - that would be 10k/year max). The 3-5% comes from long term price appreciation trends.

    If I did not buy that 200k house - I would invest the initial 40k and the rest of 160k gradually every month. For simplistic calculations:
    return from 40k - 5% (I can show you reward checking accounts with that rate even now). Inflation protected TIPS could be a good place if you are afraid of hyperinflation
    Earnings = 2k.

    You save 3k each year by renting.
    Running Total = 5k.

    Every year - you put in some money to your investment vehicle = mortgage amortization. So over 30 years - you would have been earning investment income on $80k @5% on an average = 4k.
    Running Total = 9k.

    So you are making 1k more by buying - AND taking a lot of leverage = risk.

    Inflation can upset this calculation - but not much. 1980 - 2008 was an unusual period of low inflation and high growth = high housing price increase. Any bets on how sustainable that would be? Typically housing price appreciation would be at or below inflation - which would favor other investment vehicles over real estate.

    I personally would need much more compelling reasons than the above to buy.

    This calculation does not take into account the flexibility in relocation if you do not buying a house. It alos does not consider the risk associated with having the largest chunk of your portfolio invested in a single non-diversified house instead of having a properly diversified portfolio.

    Probably not very relevant - but you can get a lot of leverage if you have the stomach for it by opening a brokerage account with 40k (your initial downpayment). A good semi-professional one would be IB (interactivebrokers.com). Margin accounts give a 3X/4x leverage any day. Buy a few interest rate, currency or commodity swaps with that - and your leverage can reach stratospheric levels. I know I dont have the stomach for that.





    2010 American Idol: Season 8 american idol contestants 2009. contestants. american idol
  • contestants. american idol



  • nozerd
    12-28 09:08 PM
    I believe in the maxim that you cant control how others act. You can only control how you react. This is what India should do in the short and medium term that they do have full control over.

    SHORT TERM.

    I think the easiest thing India can do to send a message is to break off complete diplomatic relations with Pakistan.

    a) Recall the Ambassador permanantly and close down the High Commision.

    b) Ban anyone who owns (or has in the past owned) a Pakistani passport from entering India under any circumstances- exceptions need to be signed off by the External Affairs Minister himself)

    c) Not allow Indians to travel to Pakistan ( Place a stamp on all passports saying entry to Pakistan not allowed - similar to what we had for South Africa 15-20 yrs ago).

    d) Make it an obvious point to boycott any forum Pak is speaking on. So if the Paki guy is speaking at the UN or SAARC the Indian delegation just leaves the room.

    e) Ignore PAK to the point that it doesnt exist.

    MEDIUM TERM

    a) Deal with internal security. Recruit and fill the Army and Intelligence agencies that are short staffed. If the trainers are not there get countries like Israel and Russia to train them or get ex US and UK army commandoes pay them the market fee and get them trained.

    b) Recruit a cadre of Indian Muslims in the IB. Get people who are Hafez (trained well in the Koran) and who are both strong muslims and patriotic Indians. Send them to Pak as sleeping agents and destabilize Pak from the inside. Infiltrate these terrorists.

    c) Leverage our influence and clout. If company X sells to Pak they can forget about any Indian company doing business with them. Pressurise govts not to allow their firms to sell to Pak.

    d) Build a cadre of polished charismatic foreign service officers with the gift of gab like Pak has. The day after the Bombay incident Pak had started working the media/ talk show circuit in the US with their honey tounged reps. They always seem to do a great job with PR while India is sleeping. Ban SC quota types from joining the IFS.



    more...


    american idol contestants 2009. Now that American Idol 8 has
  • Now that American Idol 8 has



  • unitednations
    03-25 02:54 PM
    I heard from the grapevine that UNITEDNATIONS will be the next USCIS chief - so folks better behave with him or he wil report ya all :D :D :D :D

    My first order is greencards for everyone then next time people will see me would be at my funeral after the anti immigrants knocked me and obama off.:D





    hair makeup American Idol american idol contestants 2009. Idolquot; contestants sees
  • Idolquot; contestants sees



  • Macaca
    12-23 11:04 AM
    'D' in Democrats means Do-Nothing (http://www.mercurynews.com//ci_7792528?IADID=Search-www.mercurynews.com-www.mercurynews.com) BUSH, REPUBLICANS GET THEIR WAY ON MOST ISSUES DESPITE VOTERS' MANDATE TO CHANGE DIRECTION Mercury News Editorial, 12/23/2007

    When the Democrats won control of Congress a year ago, they promised bold new leadership. Things would change, they said. They had a mandate.

    But they didn't have the votes to stand up to veto threats by Bush and filibusters by Senate Republicans. They didn't have the bold new leadership, either. A year later, Congress is lamer than the lame-duck president.

    On the Democrats' No. 1 issue, the war in Iraq, it's been a year of defeat and surrender. They were going to "bring the troops home." Instead, President Bush sent more troops to Iraq. The "surge," coupled with a new counter-insurgency strategy, has led to a sharp decline in military and civilian deaths. All attempts to link war funding to a withdrawal timetable fizzled. Giving up completely, Congress passed $70 billion in no-strings war funding before the Christmas recess.

    Democratic leaders blame their impotence on Bush's obstinacy. Bush didn't compromise. He didn't have to.

    Democrats talked about limiting the excesses of the Patriot Act, banning cruel CIA interrogation tactics and closing the Guant�namo Bay internment camp. Didn't happen.

    Instead, Congress authorized warrantless surveillance for six months by passing the Protect America Act before the August recess. Democrats were forced to push discussion on making the surveillance rules permanent into January. Bush will likely win this one, too.

    After months of wrangling, Congress approved an omnibus budget bill that gave Bush the spending levels he wanted.

    Promising fiscal discipline, the Democrats vowed to pay for any tax cuts with tax increases elsewhere or spending cuts. That "pay as you go pledge" was put aside to pass a popular bill protecting 23 million middle- and upper-middle-class taxpayers from paying $2,000 extra under the alternative minimum tax. Since the tax was originally designed to prevent the super-rich from using tax shelters, conservative Democrats tried to close tax shelters used by super-rich hedge-fund managers to cover the $50 million revenue loss. They lost.

    Congress made baby steps toward fiscal discipline by trimming "earmarks" for pet projects by 25 percent from 2006, estimates Taxpayers for Common Sense. But legislators OK'd more than $15 billion for more than 11,000 pork-barrel projects.

    President Bush didn't win them all: Social Security reform went nowhere, reauthorization of No Child Left Behind was postponed to 2008 and he couldn't rally enough Republicans to pass a complex and controversial immigration bill.

    But this wasn't supposed to be his year. The triumphant Democrats made big promises a year ago, but delivered modest results. Democrats increased the minimum wage, enacted the Sept. 11 commission's recommendations into law and expanded student loans.

    Most notable was the energy bill, which included the first increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and light trucks in 32 years.

    However, Democrats dropped plans to repeal tax breaks for oil companies and require more use of alternative energy. Bush insisted. Congress caved.

    On other issues, Congress acted and Bush vetoed. Congress expanded health insurance for children and approved federal funding for stem cell research, but couldn't overcome Bush's "no" vote.

    Stymied repeatedly, Congress saw its approval ratings fall to record lows. When you're less popular than George W. Bush, you're pretty darned unpopular.

    "I don't approve of Congress, because we haven't . . . been effective in ending the war in Iraq," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco told reporters in response to the polls. "And if you asked me in a phone call, as ardent a Democrat as I am, I would disapprove of Congress as well."

    2008 will be a year of partisan politics. No doubt Republicans will run against the do-nothing Congress. That could backfire. Democrats will tell voters that if they want Democratic policies - and most people tell pollsters they do - they need to put a Democrat in the White House in 2008.

    For the next 11 months we can expect more of the same from the lame duck and lamer Congress.



    more...


    american idol contestants 2009. hair 2010 american idol
  • hair 2010 american idol



  • dealsnet
    01-07 10:52 PM
    See the link. Palestine TV teaches the kids to be a terrorist. Through micky mouse.
    Pathetic.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gi-c6lbFGC4&NR=1


    See this poor boy.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PPU4UN03t7E&feature=related





    hot Which American Idol american idol contestants 2009. on April 13, 2009M at 4:47 pm
  • on April 13, 2009M at 4:47 pm



  • akred
    04-09 12:06 AM
    If this bill passes along with CIR, that gives the ability to file for 485 even without visa numbers being available, I think most of the placement companies would file for LC (PERM) as soon as they recruit someone (and get H1 approved). That would allow them to file for 140 and 485. Am I missing something here?

    Yes, you are missing something. The processing times for LC(PERM) and for I-140 are not guaranteed. There will be trouble if either of these take an extended amount of time like the multi-year waits that we saw in the recent past. So, the ability to file I-485 without visa number availability will address current filers, but may not protect future filers.



    more...


    house About 300 aspiring quot;American american idol contestants 2009. 4th in the American Idol,
  • 4th in the American Idol,



  • nojoke
    04-07 10:40 PM
    exactly ..and housing is worse then stocks i.e. it takes longer to recover. for lot of people like me ..it definitely makes sense to rent. 3 of my close friends are literally cursing their decision to buy (pressure from spouse and trying to keep up with others) ,.. there is one other major point for people on EAD. once you get a GC you may get a super duper job offer somewhere ..if you are stuck in a house then you are severly handicapped by that house (i.e. you cannot relocate easily).
    btw even the realtors are saying that it will be atleast end 2009 before any possible housing recovery (if realtors say end 2009 then it means atleast 2010 before price decline stops).

    Desis who come here are all engineers and well educated. I couldn't believe that some of them are falling for the realtor tricks. I know someone who last year paid 200K more on an advertised price of 1million. He said the realtor told him that there was bidding war and he kept rising it and eventually got the house for 1.2million. What stupidity. Doesn't he know about phantom bids that realtors use to jack up the price.:( This is last year end when housing here started crashing. I asked him how he is going to pay when his arm resets. He says he will refinance. God save him.





    tattoo American Idol contestants american idol contestants 2009. hair American Idol Season 8
  • hair American Idol Season 8



  • validIV
    06-26 10:32 AM
    I have only one sentence to say ..watch the movie "pacific heights" ..I was watching it now and that is a perfect movie for those who intend to rent their homes.

    LOL. Why dont you throw in Armageddon, Knowing and Deep Impact. Those are also valid points since thats what can happen to the earth tommorow or the day after.

    Investment carries risk. Anyone who tells you otherwise is lying. I have lost money on other investments before, but that is what makes u grow smarter. You fall and you get back up and you know better the next time round.

    If you spend the rest of your life renting, the risk is 100%�you end up with nothing. I will take my chances investing my money in buying a home because its certainly better than losing 100%.



    more...


    pictures American Idol Top 3 american idol contestants 2009. American Idol contestants
  • American Idol contestants



  • Macaca
    05-01 06:05 PM
    A New Immigration Consensus
    A bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors have joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703387904576279293334248326.html)
    By MICHAEL R. BLOOMBERG | Wall Street Journal

    Last month, President Obama convened a diverse group of business executives, mayors, law enforcement leaders, ministers and advocates at the White House to discuss a problem that threatens America's economic future�our broken immigration system.

    We've tried before to fix it. President George W. Bush made comprehensive immigration reform a major legislative priority during his second term. Congressional leaders from both parties, including Sens. Ted Kennedy and John McCain, worked tirelessly to pass legislation. But the bill could not garner the required votes. Nor could a much narrower bill, the Dream Act, which would have granted legal status to the children of immigrants who enroll in college or the military.

    These defeats have led to a conventional wisdom in Washington that bipartisan immigration reform is impossible. But a new consensus on immigration reform has emerged in the business community that could break the logjam and provide a much-needed jolt to our economy. The idea is simple: Reform the way we attract and keep talented and hard-working people from abroad to better promote economic growth.

    In the global economy, the countries that attract the world's best, brightest and hardest-working will grow and succeed. Those that refuse them entry will not. America has long understood this. We would not have become a global superpower without opening our doors to immigrants�and we cannot long remain one without continuing that practice. Smart, self-motivated immigrants spur the innovations and create the jobs our economy needs to thrive. Between 1995 and 2005, for example, 25% of high-tech startups in the U.S. had at least one immigrant as a key founder. Those companies alone have created 450,000 jobs�with the vast majority of them going to Americans.

    Our global competitors understand how crucial immigrants are to economic growth. They roll out the red carpet for entrepreneurs; we have no entrepreneur visa. They heavily recruit our advanced-degree students; we educate them and send them home. They woo the engineers, scientists and other skilled professionals who invent new products, launch product lines, and develop the technology of tomorrow; we erect arbitrary, senseless and bureaucratic barriers to recruitment. And we do all this even as our unemployment rate hovers around 9%.

    Although each party claims to have the solution to our country's economic woes, neither has embraced a job-creation strategy based on immigration reform, which would not add a penny to the national debt. To spur them into action, a bipartisan coalition of business leaders and mayors has joined together to make the case that visa reform is an economic imperative. In nine months the Partnership for a New American Economy has grown to more than 200 members, including companies that together employ more than 3.5 million people.

    We believe in the need to secure our borders, make it possible to hold businesses accountable for verifying the status of workers, address the reality that 11 million people are here illegally and cannot be deported en masse�and increase lawful opportunities for those who want to come to this country and contribute to our prosperity. Nevertheless, our nation cannot afford to wait for Washington to get its act together and pass comprehensive immigration reform. There is too much at stake. Our economy demands that we take immediate action on the most urgent�and politically attainable�reform: making it easier for job creators to come and stay here.

    Creating a visa for entrepreneurs who already have funding to start their businesses will lead directly and immediately to American jobs. Visa reforms to improve temporary and permanent pathways for companies to fill the current shortages of engineers, scientists and other specialists�whose annual visa caps are often exhausted within days of becoming available�will spur growth at existing U.S. companies.

    Providing visas to the brightest foreign graduates of our universities will allow our economy to reap the rewards of their work. At the same time, allowing immigrants who succeed in college, or serve in our military, the chance to pursue a career and build their lives here legally will strengthen the long-term health of the American economy.

    Finally, developing a reliable way for employers to hire guest workers�who grow the nation's food, support our $1.3 trillion tourism industry, and fill seasonal gaps across industries�will help support U.S. businesses and create additional, better-paying American jobs.

    Those who focus on where the parties differ on immigration, rather than where they both agree, have paralyzed the debate in Washington for far too long. Despite this deadlock, there is an opportunity for both parties to seize upon the economics of immigration reform and focus on what all Americans agree we need: more jobs. Leaders of both parties talk about creating jobs, but they are ignoring the voices of business leaders who can actually create them�if only Congress would give them the tools.

    Mr. Bloomberg, an independent, is mayor of New York City

    In Arizona, Sheriff Joe Arpaio shrugs off a rough April (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-arpaio-trouble-20110501,0,3084923.story) By Nicholas Riccardi | Los Angeles Times
    Obama renews call for immigration action in Miami speech (http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-renews-call-for-immigration-action-in-miami-speech/2011/04/29/AFbdHUHF_story.html) By Perry Bacon Jr. | The Washington Post





    dresses on April 13, 2009M at 4:47 pm american idol contestants 2009. american idol contestants
  • american idol contestants



  • Macaca
    02-27 08:12 AM
    Thank You, Mr. Chairman (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/26/AR2007022601142_2.html).

    If it's good to be a Democrat on K Street these days, it's even better to be a Democrat who once worked for a current chairman of a congressional tax-writing committee. That's clearly where the money is.

    Timothy E. Punke, a former trade aide to Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) of the Senate Finance Committee, was named a partner of Monument Policy Group, a lobbying firm. His new clients include heavyweights such as Microsoft and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America.

    Former Baucus chief of staff Jeffrey A. Forbes of Cauthen Forbes & Williams also has a slew of new clients. They include Merck, Genentech, Ford and Intuit.

    William A. Signer, a former staffer to Chairman Charles B. Rangel (D-N.Y.) of the House Ways and Means Committee, has a new job -- managing director of health-care and tax practices at Carmen Group. "His experience in understanding Chairman Rangel's goals and motivations are invaluable to clients," said David M. Carmen, president of the firm. Signer's ties to Rangel, Carmen added, were "definitely a factor" in his hiring.



    more...


    makeup Now that American Idol 8 has american idol contestants 2009. About 300 aspiring quot;American
  • About 300 aspiring quot;American



  • gcisadawg
    12-22 03:29 PM
    Well, my dear freind you obviously did not understand what I meant. I still maintain that Kashmir is the root of the problem and India has nothing to gain by keeping it. Caring for India and Caring for Kashmir are two different issues. The very reason , I want to cut off the cancerous finger is to prevent the spread of cancer to the other parts.

    On the other hand if some is attacking me in my home and/or hurting my family or freinds, I have full rights to defend and call of justice to prosecute the attacker.

    More than the people of Kashmir or the land of Kashmir, it is the waters of Kashmir that is becoming a huge issue. This hasn't gotten a huge attention in the media. I read an article in one of the foreign affairs magazine at a local book store and they have explained this issue at length.





    girlfriend hair American Idol Season 8 american idol contestants 2009. Mentors 2010 American Idol
  • Mentors 2010 American Idol



  • RaviG
    07-14 08:24 PM
    the spill over from EB1 should go equally to Eb2 and Eb3..can we work on getting this message across.

    I dont understand your argument, may be I misunderstood. Who will benefit from EB1 to EB3 spill over ROW or retrogressed countries. It likely EB3 ROW. So why EB3 Indian writing the letter? May be things should be more clear about what you want to achieve.





    hairstyles hair 2010 american idol american idol contestants 2009. March 04, 2009 10:09 PM by
  • March 04, 2009 10:09 PM by



  • ilwaiting
    04-09 11:09 AM
    Looks like everyone want to talk about their specific selfish advantages and ignore the problem on a whole if this bill passes.

    I think this bill ironically works out well for doctors and researchers!

    We are not consultants.Most of the times we stick to one place. Either doing residency or postdoc we are usually in one place. Most universities are very rigorous with the labour certification process and residency is obtained via "match".

    The consulting companies have been responsible for for flooding the GC process. Consequently researchers and doctors have to wait with the rest of the crowd. This new bills will turn out to be very advantageous to doctors and scientists ( in nonprofit organizations).

    Would like to hear opinions for and against this view......





    Macaca
    08-01 08:24 PM
    House Votes 411-8 to Pass Ethics Overhaul (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/31/AR2007073100200.html) Far-Reaching Measure Faces Senate Hurdles By Jonathan Weisman Washington Post Staff Writer, August 1, 2007

    The House gave final and overwhelming approval yesterday to a landmark bill that would tighten ethics and lobbying rules for Congress, forcing lawmakers to more fully detail how their campaigns are funded and how they direct government spending.

    The new lobbying bill would, for the first time, require lawmakers to disclose small campaign contributions that are "bundled" into large packages by lobbyists. It would require lobbyists to detail their own campaign contributions, as well as payments to presidential libraries, inaugural committees and charities controlled by lawmakers. The proposal would also put new disclosure requirements on special spending measures for pet projects, known as "earmarks."

    "What we did today was momentous," declared House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). "It's historic."

    The bill is the most far-reaching attempt at ethics reform since Watergate, although it is not as aggressive as some legislators wanted in restricting the use of earmarks and in requiring the disclosure of donation bundling. The legislation, which had been stalled until negotiators worked out a deal in recent days to get it passed before the August recess, is a priority for Democrats, who won control of Congress in part because they had decried what they called "a culture of corruption" under Republicans.

    Although it passed the House 411 to 8, the bill could face hurdles in the Senate, which is under a new ethics cloud after the FBI raid Monday on Sen. Ted Stevens's house. Last night, a group of Republican senators prevented Democrats from bringing up the bill, forcing the scheduling of a vote tomorrow to break the filibuster. Still, senators from both parties predicted easy passage by week's end.

    Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid (D-Nev.) all but dared Republicans to try to block the proposal when it comes to a vote as early as tomorrow. "With that resounding vote in the House, 411-8, I think people ought to be concerned about voting against it," he said yesterday.

    But in a closed-door lunch with fellow Republican senators yesterday, Stevens (R-Alaska) himself threatened to block the measure, objecting that the legislation's new restrictions on lawmakers' use of corporate jets would unfairly penalize members of Congress who live in distant states, such as himself.

    The legislation would end secret "holds" in the Senate, which allow a single senator to block action without disclosing that he or she has done so. Members of Congress would no longer be allowed to attend lavish parties thrown in their honor at political conventions. Gifts, meals and travel funded by lobbyists would be banned, and travel on corporate jets would be restricted. Lobbyists would have to disclose their activities more often and on the Internet. And lawmakers convicted of bribery, perjury and other crimes would be denied their congressional pensions.

    "These are big-time fundamental reforms," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the open-government group Democracy 21.

    Rep. Michael N. Castle (R-Del.), who failed to get ethics legislation enacted last year, noted that the final bill's disclosure rules are considerably less tough on the "bundling" of small campaign contributions into large donations by lobbyists. The original ethics bill would have required the disclosure of bundled contributions over $5,000 every three months. Under the final bill, lawmakers would have to report every six months any bundled contributions from lobbyists totaling more than $15,000. In one year, a single lobbyist could funnel nearly $30,000 to a candidate or campaign committee without any of those actions having to be disclosed.

    House negotiators also refused to lengthen the current one-year "cooling-off" period, during which former House members are prohibited from becoming lobbyists.

    Some conservatives latched on to the weakening of earmark disclosure rules that had passed the Senate in January. An explicit prohibition on trading earmarks for votes was dropped by House and Senate Democratic negotiators. A prohibition on any earmark that would financially benefit lawmakers, their immediate families, their staff or their staff's immediate families was altered to say that the ban would apply to any earmark that advances a lawmaker's "pecuniary interest." Critics say that would mean the benefit would have to be direct for the measure to be prohibited, and that the ban would not apply to a project that would benefit a larger community, including the lawmaker.

    House members are covered by earmark rules, passed earlier this year, that are tougher than the legislation, which would apply only to senators.

    "Earmarks have been the currency of corruption and, unfortunately, this lobbying reform bill does not adequately address that problem," declared Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), a longtime critic of earmarks.

    Reform groups and Democrats accused opponents of using the earmark issue as a pretext to block the other rule changes. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.), who has blocked the legislation in the past, confirmed that he remains uncomfortable with the broader bill's mandates on lobbying disclosures and gift bans.

    "You could've done nothing, or some staff member could have made an innocent mistake, and now you're defending yourself in a court of law," he said. "It's nuts."

    Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.), another critic, had single-handedly blocked the calling of a formal House-Senate conference to negotiate the final deal, forcing Democrats to hammer out the compromise on their own. The House passed it under fast-track procedures that prohibit amendments but require a two-thirds majority for approval -- a threshold that was easily met.

    Now, Reid must get the bill through the Senate without any amendment, using a parliamentary tactic that has been roundly criticized by Republicans in the past as strong-arming. But in this case, Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has given his tacit assent, laying the blame squarely on his own conservative hard-liners.

    "In a sense, we made it difficult on ourselves," McConnell said.

    It may be even more difficult for Republicans to block the measure while their senior senator, Stevens, is under a cloud of suspicion. FBI agents raided the powerful lawmaker's house Monday, looking for evidence in a long-running investigation of an Alaska energy firm, Veco, and its alleged efforts to bribe Alaska lawmakers.

    And yesterday, the House ethics committee indicated that it may consider an inquiry into whether Rep. Heather A. Wilson (R-N.M.) violated rules by calling a federal prosecutor about a pending investigation. The committee's staff interviewed the prosecutor, former U.S. attorney David C. Iglesias, yesterday.

    At least eight lawmakers -- six Republicans and two Democrats -- are under federal investigation. Earlier this year, the homes and business interests of Reps. Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.) and John T. Doolittle (R-Calif.) were searched, and Rep. William J. Jefferson (D-La.) was indicted on corruption charges.





    validIV
    06-26 10:20 AM
    Renting is not throwing money away..why ? for one - you get a place to stay, flexibility, maintenance / property tax paid by property owner, you can rent closer to your work and move around as per needs etc etc.. housing has its own benefits (but renting has its own too .."it is not as easy as saying renting is throwing money away" ..I have been asked to write about this in detail in the IV wiki ..will post a link here later

    ok if its not throwing money away, how do you get the money back you spent on renting? Nothing you said above answers that question.



    Tidak ada komentar:

    Posting Komentar