May 8, 2024

Long Wait for a Green Card Could Be Ending

Then, he waited for the American government to decide if he could stay.

“I know this country better than my own country, and I still feel like an outsider,” said Mr. Sant, 35, who received his Ph.D. from the University of Texas in 2006, and has been waiting for federal officials to approve his green card application for six years. “That’s the thing that bothers me.”

That is also the predicament of tens of thousands of workers here in the heart of the tech industry who were born overseas and educated in the United States. Though not living in poverty or in the shadows, as are migrant workers who are here illegally, they are nevertheless in a bureaucratic limbo while they wait in a long line for a green card.

Now, though, Congress is poised to end their uncertainty.

The Senate Judiciary Committee on Tuesday approved a broad overhaul of the nation’s immigration laws on a bipartisan vote, and sent the measure to the full Senate. The bill would make it much easier for science, math and engineering graduates of American universities to become permanent residents.

Crucially, it would also lift the limits on how many immigrants are allowed in from each country, which has meant that citizens of populous countries like India end up waiting far longer than others.

The provisions to ease the green card process enjoy bipartisan support, reflecting a stark reality: Nearly half of all engineering graduate students at American universities are from abroad.

Technology companies, like Facebook and Microsoft, want to hire many more of them, which is why they have lobbied to make it quicker for them to get permanent residency. So has the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, a group that campaigns for American workers.

Still, not everyone is a fan. Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies, a Washington-based research and advocacy group, who has testified against the legislation, said easy, unlimited access to green cards for math and science graduates could encourage the emergence of “visa mills,” or schools established just to sell access to the United States. Also, he said: “American young people with bachelor’s degrees see these occupations distorted by large-scale admissions of foreign workers. That then changes their own decision making about what to do in the future.”

The green card provisions have been obscured by the louder, more polarizing fight between industry and labor over foreign guest worker visas, known as H-1Bs. But they stand to have a far greater impact on the men and women who drive this industry.

Mr. Sant, like many of his friends, was drawn to the United States for higher education. In 2010, the most recent year for which data is available from the National Science Foundation, a government agency, 45 percent of master’s and doctoral students in engineering were from abroad, up from 35 percent in 1990 and 24 percent in 1980, according to the agency.

At some universities, the share of foreign students is even higher. At Carnegie Mellon University, which has one of the most prestigious engineering schools in the world, 62 percent of engineering graduate students came from abroad, and at the Rochester Institute of Technology, 56 percent.

This year, at the University of Southern California, the figure is 68 percent, according to university officials.

Among those who come to study in this country, about one in three end up staying on temporary work visas, mainly through the H-1B program. An analysis by the Brookings Institution concluded that in 2010, 30 percent of those who were working on H-1B visas were former students at American universities. Their wait for permanent residency can be frustratingly long, depending on their homeland.

According to data from the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, more than 150,000 of them have filed for green cards since 2010; nearly a third of them are from India, the largest single block.

Kartik Shah, 29, was among them. A native of Mumbai, he went to the University of Southern California, in Los Angeles, for a master’s degree in electrical engineering. He graduated in 2007 and swiftly landed a job as a software engineer at Cisco’s headquarters in San Jose, just south of here.

The company soon filed a green card application on his behalf, which it says it does for the vast majority of its H-1B workers. The government cleared his application, essentially ruling that his skills were needed. Then, it told him to wait.

Article source: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/23/technology/long-wait-for-a-green-card-could-be-ending.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

Medicine Shortages Addressed in Obama Executive Order

The order offers drug manufacturers and wholesalers both a helping hand and a gloved fist in efforts to prevent or resolve shortages that have worsened greatly in recent years, endangering thousands of lives.

It instructs the F.D.A. to do three things: broaden reporting of potential shortages of certain prescription drugs; speed reviews of applications to begin or alter production of these drugs; and provide more information to the Justice Department about possible instances of collusion or price gouging.

Such efforts are included in proposed legislation that has been pending in Congress since February despite bipartisan support for its provisions.

The order, the first since 1985 by a president to affect the functions of the Food and Drug Administration, is part of a series of recent executive orders involving such disparate issues as mortgage relief and jobs for veterans. They are intended to show that the president, plagued by low approval ratings, is working to resolve the nation’s problems despite a Congress largely paralyzed by partisan disagreements.

“The president’s action is a recognition of the fact that this is a serious problem, and we can and should do more to help solve it,” said an administration official who asked to remain anonymous to avoid upstaging the official announcement on Monday. “We can’t wait anymore.”

So far this year, at least 180 drugs that are crucial for treating childhood leukemia, breast and colon cancer, infections and other diseases have been declared in short supply — a record number. Prices for some have risen as much as eightyfold, and clinical trials for some experimental cures have been delayed because the studies must also offer older medicines that cannot be reliably provided.

Patients with entirely curable diseases have been forced to take medicines that may not be as effective, adding anxiety to an already terrible ordeal.

The president’s order is a modest effort that, while possibly helpful, is unlikely to resolve the problem soon or entirely. Administration officials characterized it as one step in a long and complicated effort. Indeed, Mr. Obama eschewed more ambitious proposals — like government drug stockpiling or manufacturing — that would have injected the government more directly into the nation’s drug market and cost more but that might have been more effective.

Still, Mr. Obama’s order and others he has issued recently reflect his belief in the power of government to improve people’s lives. By contrast, top Republican legislators and presidential candidates have almost uniformly argued that resolving the nation’s economic and other problems depends mostly on scaling back or ending government regulations to allow the free market to function more effectively. No regulatory agency touches people’s lives more thoroughly than the F.D.A., which regulates 25 cents of every dollar spent by consumers.

Along with Mr. Obama’s order, on Monday the administration will release two government reports that mostly blame a dysfunctional marketplace for drug shortages, directly contradicting assertions by some commentators that government rules are to blame. The analyses found that 74 percent of the medicines in short supply in 2010 were sterile injectibles, the kind of drugs delivered in hospitals or clinics to treat cancer or anesthetize patients before surgery.

The economic and technical hurdles to participating in this market have made it exceedingly inflexible, the analyses found. Just five large hospital buying groups purchase nearly 90 percent of the needed medicines, and only seven companies manufacture the vast majority of supply. In most cases, one company produces at least 90 percent of a drug’s supply, and crucial ingredients — many of them made in mammoth plants in India and China — are often difficult to find, verify and approve, so years are needed to create new capacity. While demand has grown steadily in recent years, supply capacity has remained largely unchanged.

With so much supply dependent on so few companies and facilities, safety problems that arise anywhere in the system can result in enormous disruptions. Nearly half of the shortages followed inspections that found serious quality problems, including injectibles that had glass shards, metal filings and bacterial and fungal contamination, the reports found.

Even the generic drug industry is calling for more regulation. The industry recently agreed to provide the F.D.A. with nearly $300 million annually to bolster inspections and speed drug applications. That amounts to about 1 percent of the industry’s revenues and about 5 percent of its profits in the United States, an extraordinary vote of confidence in the government’s ability to improve the situation.

This money and an industry campaign to build more capacity may eventually resolve much of the supply disruptions. In the meantime, Mr. Obama will promise Monday to strengthen the staff of the drug agency’s shortages team to deal with what are expected to be far more and detailed communications with manufacturers about events that could affect drug supplies, officials said.

The administration will also send letters to manufacturers reminding them of their legal responsibility to report pending supply disruptions of certain drugs and to encourage them to notify the drug agency of events that could possibly lead to disruptions even when not required to do so.

The rules needed to expand required notifications will take time to finalize, but the president’s order will speed that process, administration officials said. The president will also announce his support of legislation proposed in both the House and Senate to expand even further reporting requirements from manufacturers.

Mr. Obama’s order that the F.D.A. report to the Justice Department possible instances of price gouging or collusion is largely directed at the shadowy and fading world of small wholesalers that buy drugs from one set of users and in times of shortage sell them at huge markups to another. In one case, a leukemia drug that normally sold for $12 per vial was being sold for $990 per vial — 80 times higher. A survey found that small wholesalers typically increased prices by 650 percent during shortages.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=b7e1756459687b5272d2bed3cd120257

Prescriptions Blog: Obama Pushes More Competition on Biologic Drugs

President Obama is not giving up when it comes to trying to introducing competition to expensive drugs made by biotechnology.

Tucked into the president’s deficit reduction plan released on Monday was a proposal to reduce the market exclusivity offered to brand-name biologic drugs to seven years, down from the 12 incorporated in the 2010 federal health care legislation.

That would allow so-called generic versions of such drugs to reach the market sooner, saving an estimated $3.5 billion in federal health spending over 10 years, or a little over one-tenth of 1 percent of the $3 trillion the president’s deficit reduction plan is supposed to save in a decade.

Biologic drugs are proteins made in living cells, like Avastin and Herceptin for cancer and Enbrel and Humira for rheumatoid arthritis. Such drugs can cost tens of thousands of dollars a year and are not subject to the same rapid onset of generic competition as drugs made in chemical factories, like Lipitor and Prozac.

The issue was a thorny one during the debate in Congress over the health care legislation.

The biotechnology industry argued it needed 12 years of freedom from lower priced competition to recoup research and development costs. Any less, it argued, would retard innovation. The generic industry, as well as many insurers and employers who pay health care bills, said a much shorter period would suffice.

Mr. Obama urged seven years as a “generous compromise.’’ But Congress, with bipartisan support, went with 12 years.

Now the president hopes for another chance. The proposal released Monday “is consistent with where the administration has been since Day 1,’’ a senior administration official said at a press briefing.

Will the deficit situation cause Congress to reconsider? The biotechnology industry is likely to lobby very hard against that.

The Food and Drug Administration has yet to define the procedures for getting such generic biologic drugs, often called “biosimilars,’’ approved. But various generic drug companies and some big pharmaceutical companies are getting ready. Gardiner Harris reported in an article on Monday that generic drug companies in China and India are also gearing up.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=cbf589d0f533b68a1b7c045470091f7d

Economic View: The Payroll Tax Needs a Vacation

It’s important, yes, and must be addressed. But by a wide margin, it’s not the nation’s most pressing economic problem. That would be the widespread and persistent joblessness that has plagued the labor market since the Great Recession began in 2008.

Almost 14 million people — 9.1 percent of the labor force — were officially counted as unemployed last month. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. There were almost 9 million part-time workers who wanted, but couldn’t find, full-time jobs; 28 million in jobs they would have quit under normal conditions; and an additional 2.2 million who wanted work but couldn’t find any and dropped out of the labor force.

If the economy could generate jobs at the median wage for even half of these people, national income would grow by more than 10 times the total interest cost of the 2011 deficit (which was less than $40 billion). So anyone who says that reducing the deficit is more urgent than reducing unemployment is saying, in effect, that we should burn hundreds of billions of dollars worth of goods and services in a national bonfire.

We ought to be tackling both problems at once. But in today’s fractious political climate, many promising dual-purpose remedies — like infrastructure investments that would generate large and rapid returns — are called unthinkable, in the false belief that they would impoverish our grandchildren. Yet there are other ways to attack unemployment that could garner bipartisan support.

Perhaps the most promising is a payroll tax holiday. The payroll tax was originally meant to pay for Social Security, and in recent years, employees and employers have each contributed 6.2 percent of total salary — with no additional levies on salaries beyond $106,800. Congress should both declare an immediate payroll tax holiday for employees and exempt employers from making contributions for newly hired workers — and keep both provisions in effect until the end of next year.

The first step would increase take-home pay, thus stimulating spending and employment. And the employer exemption from taxes on new hires would make it substantially less expensive to hire additional workers.

Last December, Congress approved cutting the employee’s contribution to the payroll tax to 4.2 percent of salary for the 2011 calendar year, a move that attests to the political viability of my proposal. President Obama has proposed extending the employee reduction through 2012, but in the face of dreary recent labor market data, stronger steps are needed.

Larry Seidman, an economist at the University of Delaware, has estimated that if employee payroll tax payments were suspended from next month through 2012, the unemployment rate by the end of that period would be one percentage point lower than it would have been otherwise. Private-sector employment would thus expand by about 2.4 million workers by the end of next year.

Even greater employment growth would result from the employer exemption on new hires. Companies aren’t very likely to hire additional workers unless they can generate at least enough new income to cover their salaries, including all relevant taxes. The exemption would reduce the cost of hiring new workers by 6.2 percent — and even by conservative estimates, we can expect it to result in more than five million new hires.

Although payroll tax revenue has traditionally been designated to pay for Social Security benefits, Congress should make clear that these steps will have no effect on current or future retirement checks. The Treasury would have to issue new bonds to cover those payments in the short term. But the payroll tax holiday and cap need not compromise the long-term goal of deficit reduction.

Because these two measures would increase employment by more than seven million by the end of 2012, income tax revenue would rise accordingly. And higher employment would sharply increase both the employee and employer portions of the payroll tax, compared with what they otherwise would have been when the tax holiday ended.

Taking such steps to expand employment would improve the long-run deficit picture in other ways. Periods of high unemployment are periods of high social stress. Increasing employment would reduce divorce rates and result in better nutrition and parental care for children. It would also give many recent graduates a quicker start to their careers. These effects would yield permanent increases in lifetime earnings, with corresponding effects on tax revenue.

Higher demand would also accelerate business investment. Many companies aren’t investing today because they already have enough capacity to produce more than people want to buy. Greater investment would bolster productivity and wages, which would also lead to permanently higher future tax revenue.

Enacting a payroll tax holiday, however, shouldn’t end discussion of more forceful and effective proposals to stimulate employment. We need to keep posing hard questions to deficit hawks who argue that we shouldn’t be hiring unemployed workers to maintain our crumbling roads and bridges, even though postponing such projects will make them much more expensive in the future. These projects don’t impoverish our grandchildren.  They enrich them.

The important point is that bringing down federal deficits is a long-run problem that cannot and should not be solved by gutting entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare. Deficit reduction will require creative thinking about additional revenue sources and judicious decisions about future spending. But our immediate concern must be getting people back to work.

Robert H. Frank is an economics professor at the Johnson Graduate School of Management at Cornell University.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=2610b0c4ceef000cb189d058d7ceea9b

With Rebuke of Senate Republicans, Fed Nominee Withdraws

Mr. Diamond, a professor of economics at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a Nobel Prize laureate for his work on labor markets, had waited more than a year for a Senate vote, a step that Republicans refused to allow.

“We should all worry about how distorted the confirmation process has become, and how little understanding of monetary policy there is among some of those responsible for its Congressional oversight,” Mr. Diamond wrote Monday in an Op-Ed article in The New York Times that announced his decision.

Mr. Diamond criticized Senate Republicans for treating his expertise in labor economics as irrelevant to decisions about monetary policy. “Understanding the labor market — and the process by which workers and jobs come together and separate — is critical to devising an effective monetary policy,” he wrote.

While the timing was unanticipated, the failure of the nomination had seemed inevitable. Senator Richard C. Shelby, the senior Republican on the Banking Committee, had said repeatedly that Mr. Diamond lacked the necessary qualifications.

“It is my hope that President Obama will now nominate someone capable of garnering bipartisan support in the Senate,” Mr. Shelby, who is from Alabama, said in a statement Monday. “It would be my hope that the president will not seek to pack the Fed with those who will use the institution to finance his profligate spending and agenda.”

Mr. Shelby added that he had great respect for Mr. Diamond and wished him the best.

The White House issued a statement Monday promising a new nominee “as soon as possible.”

“We are deeply disappointed that this candidate, who had initially seen bipartisan support, fell victim to partisan obstructionism at this important time for our economic recovery,” said Jay Carney, White House spokesman.

The withdrawal leaves two empty seats on the Fed’s seven-member board, which sets monetary policy together with selected presidents of the Fed’s regional banks. The position of vice chairman for supervision, created last year, also is vacant.

The empty seats are part of a broader void atop the agencies charged with overhauling and improving financial regulation in the wake of the 2008 crisis.

President Obama has not nominated a new head for the Comptroller of the Currency, which oversees national banks, nor a new chairman for the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, which insures bank deposits and cleans up failed banks. And Republicans have said they will not approve any nominee to lead the newest agency, the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. So far the White House has not sought to test their intransigence.

Mr. Diamond’s nomination became a proxy for a broader fight between the White House and Congressional Republicans over the government’s role in the economy. Mr. Diamond publicly supported an ongoing Fed program to stimulate growth by purchasing $600 billion in Treasury securities. Mr. Shelby and other Republicans described the program as a backdoor method of lending the government more money.

In his opinion piece Monday, Mr. Diamond echoed a position the White House often has taken: Spending is not good or bad. It just depends what you are buying.

“In reality, we need more spending on some programs and less spending on others, and we need more good regulations and fewer bad ones,” Mr. Diamond wrote. “Skilled analytical thinking should not be drowned out by mistaken, ideologically driven views that more is always better or less is always better. I had hoped to bring some of my own expertise and experience to the Fed. Now I hope someone else can.”

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=4d454fc154f23cefbbd9978ed1648fd3

Missouri Halts Extension of Pay for Unemployed

The move, which came despite widespread bipartisan support for extending the benefits, puts Missouri at the center of a growing national discussion about reining in unemployment benefits at a time when both the job market and government coffers remain weakened.

In recent weeks, Republican leaders in Michigan, Arkansas and Florida have taken steps to limit their states’ contributions by cutting the duration of unemployment benefits.

But for now Missouri, with an unemployment rate above 9 percent, is the only state that has stopped accepting dedicated federal money to extend payments to 99 weeks from 79. (A number of states never joined when the program was initially offered.)

“This is about sending a message to the federal government from the state of Missouri that enough is enough,” said Jim Lembke, the state senator who, with three other Republicans, is filibustering the legislation. “The federal government is sending us money they don’t have.”

Mr. Lembke said he also plans to block a vote needed to accept nearly $190 million in federal education money.

The reauthorization legislation, which was supported by the leadership of both parties, passed by a wide majority in the House and had been expected to pass easily in the Senate, where a similar extension passed unanimously last year. Both chambers are controlled by Republicans. The legislation is supported by Gov. Jay Nixon, a Democrat.

But senators so far have decided against using a rarely invoked procedure to end debate. The chamber adjourned Thursday without voting on the matter, missing a deadline required for the payments to continue uninterrupted.

“This is the angriest I’ve ever been,” said Jolie Justus, a Democratic senator who gave an emotional speech in favor of extending benefits. “To tell these thousands of people that they have to get off their backsides and get a job is so out of touch with what’s going on in Missouri right now.”

In addition to those whose payments will stop immediately, the Missouri Department of Labor estimated that another 24,000 people would be affected by the end of the year — totaling $105 million in lost payments.

Senators were still discussing the possibility that a deal could be worked out, either through compromise or by forcing a vote.

Article source: http://feeds.nytimes.com/click.phdo?i=e1d6451a65f394276206edd9300d7be3