DEDixon

And yet, he increased the number of CBP agents from the Bush era... It is very intriguing that nobody seemed concerned with the situation of immigration during the eight years 'The Decider' was in the White House.

What I find even more intriguing, if not downright hypocritical, is that those who how criticize President Obama for his exec decision are most of the same who applauded Reagan's full fledged amnesty back in the 80's. And yet, nobody care about the situation of our borders. 4,000 miles on the north, another 2,000 to the south and everyone seems to have missed them.

Bush was in favor of immigration reform, it was the republicans in congress that were not. Bush's stance was more pro-latino than anyone thought possible, but not very many speak of the many Latinos in the Bush family being from Texan more than a few in the Bush family are Latinos (married into the Bush family).

You might be right, I noticed Brewer doesn't quite seem to realize the ramifications of the ruling (or she's putting on a brave face).

if AZ does try to detain someone and it comes out that the only reason for the detention was immigration related it will go right back into the courts.

I don't know if the justices meant this would be the case for it to return to court, but they did say that more suits were possible as a result of upholding the law.

It is a wait and see thing for me. My post is more about what the experts said and what really happened.

Fair dinkum!

What I cant understand, is why dont they plug the border first and then think about the next steps. IMHO it makes as much sense as fixing the water damage before the leak is contained and repaired.

Congress keeps saying they want comprehensive immigration reform so turn the whole thing upside down all at once, no piece-mealing (they can't agree enough to do this). But I agree, stop the flood, close the gate, then tackle the rest comprehensively.

Back to populist: Obama had 2 years where he had dems controlling both congresses, but completely ignored immigration reform. Now he wants to appease them with this new policy. Shame!

Precisely. Jen Brewer was simply grandstanding. She passed legislation which cannot be effected by those under her command. She is just a populist politician pandering to the ignorance of some of her constituency. Not better nor worse than any other politician.

Not precisely - I just read in an article that the stops will begin. They are going to do nothing. Again, I don't know how it will play out, but it isn't as you have written above, I don't think they'll be that passive in AZ.

And come on, what pol isn't a populist? Obama wasn't being a populist when he change the policy for deporting illegals under 30? If you can't see through his move this close to an election as populist then you are certainly in denial and by no means anything close to a moderate.

They gave the office of the Governor that which she asked. It will be interesting to watch what she will do with that part of the legislation.

I agree and we actually do not know yet. The stop have only just begun.

The justices did caution that more lawsuit could follow because of their ruling, but nevertheless, the most hotly debated portion was upheld so definitely more to come. Let's just not listen to the experts in the next go-around. Keep an open mind.

That doesnt make sense. If Jen Brewer can make laws in regards to immigration, she should also be able to send her agents to the border to patrol it, lest it be perceived as grandstanding.

The agents on the border are federal agents, paid for by the federal gov't. The entire operation at the border is federal and everything decided there is federal. And what are you talked about, the supreme court just ruled that states can't make immigration laws hence the 3 portions which were struck down.

That is precisely the case. Jen Brewer has hanged the cops to dry....

I don't know how this will play out in real life. Where I am most amazed it that 3 liberal justices upheld the most hotly debated part of the law. The portion that the "experts" said was a no brainer for strike down.... so much for the constitutional experts that were quoted so much on here 2 years ago. Of course, they were left leaning experts so biased from the beginning.

What happens now, exactly, I do not know.

It is a pity that Arizona is spending so much money on this propaganda rather than reinforcing the actual border with more agents.

It isn't Arizona's call on how much is spent on the border or how many agents are there. The AZ law is a result of lack of enforcement by the feds.

But here is the beauty of the ruling, in AZ being illegal is not a crime. Police may only detain a person if they believe they have or are about to commit a crime along the lines of reasonable suspicion.

Therefore, an AZ officer can ask all they want but they don't seem to have the authority to actually detain any longer.

So you are saying the supreme court upheld the law but gives officers no power to do anything. That makes no sense at all. I don't believe their hands will be as tied as you say.

It will also depend on the circumstances of the arrests. How does one tell the difference between and illegal and a US citizen?

I think there are plenty of questions a police officer can ask to anyone to determine legal resident vs. illegal. The justices know the police won't always get it right, but nevertheless, the law was upheld by majority liberal justices (wow!).

The police will be trained. They know their methods will be questioned so I think their questions will be fair. How else without questions? I know know. Definitely can't go by the way someone looks, they surely know that.

About I meant "Spin, just spin. Fact is, it wasn't struck down like the "experts" said it would be.... you know the MOST debated portion WASN'T struck down. It does "not" matter which of the justices struck it down, just that it was and that is 1 for the non-experts and 0 for the experts."

But since you brought it up, that 3 liberal judges sided with the "stop" law and 2 not so liberal judges joined them, this makes the experts look even worse.

I don't think they'll come out for every little traffic stop.

I don't think they have to come out to the scene, they'll come to the detention center and given the number of illegals in AZ, there won't be just one for the feds to do whatever they may do (I don't know what they will do ... again, will probably vary greatly depending on the circumstances).

3 out of 4 provisions before the court are struck down and you characterize that as a win.

Yes, because those 3 were not as hotly debated as the one that was upheld. The experts said "stop" portion would be struck down because of possible racial profiling and they made it seem like a no brainer, but there it is, upheld by liberals at that. And like I said previous, the result of a stop will vary greatly so will have to wait for the stats.

Also..

The justices struck down three other parts of the law:

One making it a crime for an illegal immigrant to work or to seek work in Arizona;

One which authorized state and local officers to arrest people without a warrant if the officers have probable cause to believe a person is an illegal immigrant;

And one that made it a state requirement for immigrants to register with the federal government.

So it seems to me that they can ask about immigration status but have no power to actually do anything about it unless there happens to be a federal unit nearby.

Those were not the most debated portion of the law.

You don't think there is a federal unit in AZ? At this time, I actually don't know how a stop and then arrest will play out.... I'm betting it will vary greatly and we'll have to wait for the stats to draw any real conclusion.

Here is how volokh.com (a legal blog) describes the Arizona ruling:

In the Arizona decision, a 5-3 majority, with Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Anthony Kennedy joining three liberal justices (Justice Kagan was recused), ruled that three out of the four challenged provisions of the Arizona immigration law are preempted by federal law. The fourth – the controversial provision requiring state police to check the immigration status of some people arrested for other reasons – is remanded to the lower courts so that they can construe the state law in order to determine more fully whether it conflicts with federal law.

Spin, just spin. Fact is, it wasn't struck down like the "experts" said it would be.... you know the MOST debated portion WASN'T struck down. It does matter which of the justices struck it down, just that it was and that is 1 for the non-experts and 0 for the experts.

You should make time. And I don't mean to dive into the archives, but to maybe dive into this actual ruling

I don't need the knitty gritty, just this:

"Meanwhile Erika Andiola, an activist and undocumented immigrant in Arizona, says that the Latino community will not be happy with the decision, as the immigration checks portion of the law was most unpopular with them. ""

FROM NEWS STORY: "Even Sonia Sotomayor, part of the court's liberal wing, said she was "terribly confused" by the government's argument against the checks."

WOW!

FROM NEWS STORY: The Supreme Court upheld a key part of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law in a 5-3 decision on Monday that allows police officers to ask about immigration status during stops.

I don't have time, but sure would be interesting to dive back into the archives here to see the names of those experts.

5-3 decision so not even close to the experts.

LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Gov. Jerry Brown wants to shift the safety net protecting California's most vulnerable residents

Pressured by a $16 billion budget deficit, the governor is proposing a major overhaul of the state's welfare-to-work program with the strategy of slashing people's benefits to motivate them to get jobs faster.

The move, if approved by the state Legislature as part of the 2012-13 budget package, would save $880 million, but beyond the savings, analysts say it represents a shift in the philosophy of how the Golden State helps its neediest residents.

"It's a reversal of the state's historic commitment to these families and children," said Scott Graves, senior policy analyst with the California Budget Project. "It's a very significant change."

California is the national leader in welfare recipients. About 3.8 percent of state residents were on welfare in 2010, the highest percentage in the country. In fact, California houses about a third of the nation's welfare recipients, while only housing one-eighth of the national population.

Most of the recipients, however, are children — more than three-quarters of the 1.5 million in the welfare-to-work program CalWORKs, which stands for California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids. The rest are mostly single mothers who must work or participate in job training and related activities to receive cash assistance.

The state has traditionally held a relatively generous attitude toward welfare. For instance, CalWORKs gives cash grants to children even when their parents are ineligible for benefits for various reasons, such as being illegal immigrants, receiving disability, or failing to abide by the program's rules. Only three other states — Indiana, Oregon and Arizona — have such an expansive policy.

California also allows parents to receive job services and cash grants for up to four years. Before last year, the limit was 60 months.

The policies have made the program an expensive budget line — the state spends $2.9 billion on CalWORKs and related programs — and an easy target for lawmakers looking for costs to trim with little political fallout. In years past, lawmakers have proposed doing away with benefits to children with ineligible parents and even slashing the whole CalWORKs program.

The state's budget woes have given renewed impetus to whittle away at CalWORKs. Last year, the maximum five-year benefit period shrunk to four years and monthly grants were diminished 8 percent. A family of three currently receives $638 a month, less than the rate in 1988.

For the next fiscal year, the governor is proposing more sweeping cutbacks, including a 27 percent cut in cash assistance to children with ineligible parents and further slashing the time limit for full benefits from four years to two years.

Other rule changes would restrict benefits to mothers of younger children and families earning poverty-level wages and increase sanctions on those who violate program terms.

"We felt the program was losing its focus of welfare-to-work," said Todd Bland, deputy director the state Department of Social Services' welfare-to-work division. "The reason we wanted to refocus is because of the very difficult budget environment."

The changes also come at a time when California is appealing federal penalties of $160 million because it failed to move enough welfare recipients to private sector jobs of at least 30 hours a week in 2008 and 2009, a requirement to receive federal money that helps pay for CalWORKs. Many California recipients are given part-time, publicly subsidized jobs so they get work experience.

CalWORKs recipients say getting a regular job that pays enough to support a family is not easy as lawmakers think.

Sarah Smith, a 31-year-old divorced mother of four in Los Angeles County, had been a stay-at-home mother since the age of 18, only working sporadically between having children. She was forced to turn to CalWORKs a year ago after her husband stopped paying child support. She received $850 a month in cash aid and $700 in food stamps.

She's also been able to make herself more marketable through the job services the program offers. She's beefed up her clerical skills, self-confidence and resume with a minimum-wage, temporary job as a customer service assistant with the county Department of Social Services, but the job ends this month.

She's hoping she now will be able to find a permanent job. If not, she will try for a subsidized job program where the county pays half her salary and the private employer pays the rest.

Policymakers don't realize that people need a chance to rebuild their lives, Smith said, adding that CalWORKs aid is far from enough to live on.

"It's still a juggling act," she said. "People are trying to get jobs. No one really wants to be on welfare. Most people are trying to get off it."

Nearly half of CalWORKs families move off the program within two years, but about 18 percent are long-term. Those families are often have very young children and headed by parents who lack a high school diploma or job skills, or have a family member with a disability, according to a report by the Public Policy Institute of California.

Brown's reforms aim to get parents off welfare before they become entrenched. The plan calls for parents to be hired or employable within two years of entering the program by providing job training and counseling, mental health, substance abuse and domestic violence support services, and child care. They must either work or participate in those activities to get the cash aid.

After two years, the services and some money would be cut off if they do not find a private sector job — a move that would affect about 130,000 parents, according to the state Legislative Analyst's Office.

Those parents could still receive a much-reduced cash benefit for child maintenance. A parent with two children would receive $375 a month, a drop of $263.

If parents do find employment, they could still be eligible to receive services such as child care for another two years and some cash aid if their income remains below a certain level.

Social service providers say it's overly optimistic to expect the private sector to absorb tens of thousands of people, many with minimal job skills, with California's unemployment rate the second highest in the nation at 10.9 percent in April. Only 11 percent of CalWORKs parents had private sector jobs of at least 30 hours week in 2009, according to the Public Policy Institute of California.

"CalWORKs recipients are living on a shoestring as it is," said Frank Mecca, executive director of the County Welfare Directors Association of California. "This is going to plunge many children into poverty and likely increase homelessness. You're shredding the safety net at a time when it's needed most."

Republicans say it's about time California pushed harder to get people to self-sufficiency, and say more is needed. Halving the time limit is a good move, but continuing to give parents cash for children with no strings attached defeats the purpose of welfare-to-work.

"It removes the responsibility from the parent. You're taking away the accountability from the oversight of the program," said Assemblyman Brian Jones, R-Santee, vice chairman of the Assembly Human Services Committee.

Instead of focusing on half measures of welfare reform, the governor should concentrate on job-stimulation strategies so people have a place to go, he said. "If there's no regulatory reform, he's wasting his time," Jones said.

The debate over CalWORKs' mission is likely to continue, especially if state revenues continue to fall short, said Caroline Danielson, policy fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California.

"The interest is in reorienting the program toward work," she said.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/california-pushing-more-welfare-recipients-142406301.html;_ylt=AmCHA464cn82jmWKujQdPSuiuYdG;_ylu=X3oDMTQ0bjRtZ3FoBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG9yeSBSaWdodARwa2cDYmI3Zjg2MzQtODA3MS0zNTAzLWExZTAtOTM5Y2VlNTE4MzViBHBvcwM0BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAzNkYjkzNDMwLWIzZDEtMTFlMS1iZWJhLTNiNTlmNGRiYTdlNQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFpNzk0NjhtBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRwc3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25z;_ylv=3

Yes to the pro-illegal immigrants folks, some illegals do pay taxes, but they get it and more back through applying for benefits for their children. Imagine if parents were given legal status, how many more California would be supporting.

greencard received today. n-400 filing in 6 months..........

Just Courious. You said he was thrown in Jail. To do that the Authorities would have to make a charge. Was that Assualt 4 ? It is a Crime. What was the Charge and how did that go meaning "Final Outcome" and a Record. ?

yeah, most if not all places in the US today, once charged of anything relating to DV, the victim can't do squat to get the perpetrator off. the sheriff of san francisco county (basically city of sf) was recently charged with 3 crimes related to DV and although his wife is speaking out against the courts, district attorney, police, and the judge, he was issued a restraining order not by his wife but by the authorities. he can't see his wife or kid until his trail is over and yes, he was just elected the sheriff.

some of these stories in here are just too unbelievable for me to take serious (this is why i don't often read this forum, but no idea what got into me lately). i mean, if this story is true, are people, both the victim and the per;etrator here this stupid?

was just reading about a DV case tonight in the local newspaper, but this could be any city:

Last year, the district attorney's office charged 771 domestic violence cases, up from 488 the year before. When they receive a referral from the Police Department, prosecutors look at a mix of criteria to determine whether to charge it.

That includes the police report, the suspect's criminal history, the injuries to the victim, whether there's evidence beyond the victim's account, whether there was a 911 call and whether there are witnesses.

this is something for all you regulars here who, no doubt, love the drama in this forum (i've noticed a few that are always here giving their over-the-top advice .... over-the-top in my opinion). BTW, anyone advising a US citizen to leave their own house is pretty darn nutz in my book.

your kids aren't old enough to see/hear and support your position?

you are the kids mom, you are the one providing the stable home for the kids, the one that the courts order to leave is always the one that can't provide for the kids. the primary question for judges is how to keep the kids living as they always have - no disruption for them is the goal so being that this guy is bearly a step father don't ever think about leaving your home for a second.

anything can happen here. you can only protect yourself from false claims so much so do what you can and the rest you just have to leave it to chance.

best thing you can do is no matter how much you are baited into an argument, don't argue. you should do your best to let everything he says roll off your back. if you really want out of this situation, don't argue with him and don't sleep in the same room with him. just go about life almost as if he doesn't exist. don't question him about his day, where he has been, what he has done, let him start conversations, but keep your responses short. the second you feel the heat rising in a conversation, walk away, just walk away, ignore him, tell him he is right, just don't keep it going. it takes two to play and you don't have to play so if you decide to play then the situation is your fought as well.

protect your bank account and credit cards.

except for food, cut him off financially. this will cause an argument, but you only have to reply mimimally. just keep saying the same thing in your reply, like "i'm not going to support you." keep saying that... if your reply is narrow, he can't expand on your responses so the only ammo he has is "i'm not going to support you." when he goes in so many directions in conversation (trying to bait you) and you go with him, he has succeeded in getting you to argue, he baited, you bit. you bite then bait, because you can't resist, well then you own this situation as much as he does.

if you tell him you want him to leave, that the relationship is over then don't confuse him by sleeping with him. i've seen this situation so many times - people argue and are at each others throat and supposely don't care and want out, but somehow they end up in the same bed. sleeping with him doesn't send the right message if you REALLY want him out of your life.

Received congratulations letter today and amazingly today is also our 3 year wedding anniversary.

Very timely in another way too, we are moving from CA to MD on Feb. 18 so just all around good.... and lucky. I need my wife to start playing the lotto, because people often say "you're so lucky" to her. It seems GC comes quite quickly after the letter so I think she'll get her card before we leave and if not I'm going to employ our good neighbor's help to look for it in our box.

Take care everyone... best wishes... citizenship next so just one more to-do left.

In 1965, a U.S. Senate subcommittee predicted that as a result of increasing labor productivity from automation and “cybernation” -- in other words, the computer revolution -- Americans would be working only about 20 hours a week by the year 2000, while taking seven weeks or more of vacation a year.

But in 1991, the average American worker put in 163 more hours on the job than in 1973, according to the sociologist Juliet Schor, the author of “The Overworked American.” Since many more families had two parents working, the increase in annual working hours per family was much higher -- 500 to 700 hours more than in the ‘70s.

It should be noted that increases in labor productivity are not “energy-free” advances for the workers whose productivity increases. As it happens, workers are required to get much more done and more quickly. Working hours are more draining, while the hyper-competition of today’s workplace makes them even more stressful.

Increased productivity means that consumers perform a variety of pro-bono tasks that companies once had to pay to accomplish. We pump our own gas, make our own travel reservations and use automated checkout lines. Productivity is said to have increased because the companies don’t have to pay anyone to help us out anymore.

Eight-Hour Workday

Why have American working hours been so stable in the past half-century and even risen for many workers? For 100 years, from the Civil War onward, hours had been falling, thanks in no small part to workers’ demands. As long ago as May 1, 1886, half a million workers filled the streets of America’s major cities, demanding an eight-hour workday. During the Great Depression, businesses adopted 30-hour weeks. (Kellogg Co. was the most prominent company to try it, and its experiment was viewed by management and workers alike as a huge success.)

Until World War II, bread (higher wages) and roses (as in, shorter hours -- time to smell the roses!) were the twin demands of the labor movement. Yet after the war, interest in shorter work time waned, even as a buffer against unemployment. The postwar era, aided by the new medium of commercial television, ushered in what came to be known as “the consumer society.” Expectations for larger homes and cars soared. Easier credit brought a cornucopia of material goods within easy reach of the middle class.

By the mid-1970s, and especially after 1980, median wages weren’t keeping pace with increases in our capacity to produce. But flattening incomes didn’t derail the consumption train. Americans continued to buy more, in part by going deeper into debt, by having more members of the family enter the workforce and by working additional overtime. By the boom times of the late 1990s, Americans worked more than the notoriously workaholic Japanese.

The Europeans took a different path. In the second half of the 20th century, prodded by strong and active labor movements and social-democratic political parties, Europeans took a large chunk of their productivity gains in the form of more leisure. They now work only 80 to 85 percent as many hours as Americans, and when you consider that fewer people in Europe work and that they retire earlier, the difference is even greater.

Today, the Netherlands, Norway and Germany have the world’s shortest working hours. The average Dutch worker puts in fewer than 1,400 hours a year, compared with almost 1,800 for Americans. And yet, the Dutch economy has been very productive. Unemployment has been much lower than in the U.S., while the Netherlands has a positive trade balance and robust personal savings. Gallup Inc. ranks the Netherlands fifth in the world in life satisfaction (2010), behind only the Nordic countries (except Iceland) and well ahead of the U.S.

‘The Dutch Miracle’

Dutch emphasis on free time dates to at least 1982, when employers and unions signed the Wassenaar Agreement, in which unions accepted restrained wage growth in return for reductions in working hours and the expansion of part-time employment. The pact ended inflationary pressures and led to an economic turnaround that came to be called “the Dutch miracle.”

Unemployment fell from 12 percent to 5 percent. The number of part-time workers increased sharply. The average workweek was cut by three hours. The Dutch, while continuing to work hard, began to take leisure time seriously.

In 2000, the Dutch parliament passed the Working Hours Adjustment Act, perhaps the most important piece of time-balance legislation ever. According to the law, employers can refuse those workers who wish to switch to part-time work only if they demonstrate that such a reduction would cause serious financial hardship for the firm.

Such employees keep their jobs, opportunities for promotion and hourly pay. (European law requires that part-time workers be paid the same hourly rate as full-timers doing the same work.) Also maintained are health insurance and prorated benefits such as sick leave, pensions and vacation time. The law means a lot to working parents who wish to reduce the stresses of working and caring for children.

A 2007 Unicef study ranked children’s welfare in the Netherlands as the highest in the world. The U.S. was 20th of 21 wealthy countries studied. The Netherlands provides a clear example that you can have a thriving economy while working reasonable hours.

Europeans have a multiplicity of ways to reduce work time, including mandated paid sick days and family leave and offerings of sabbaticals to workers outside academia. But what most improves their time balance is the legal requirement that every European worker get at least four weeks of annual paid vacation time.

For Americans, the median annual paid vacation time has now dropped to little more than one week, according to recent polls. In 2007, only 14 percent of Americans were able to take an actual two-week vacation, and 29 percent got no paid vacation time at all.

Fewer Days Off

That number has grown during the economic downturn. In Washington State, 73 percent of businesses offered paid vacations in 2007; by 2008, the number had dropped to 63 percent, and it is still falling.

Vacation time is increasingly becoming a privilege of the elite. Low-income workers are least likely to receive any paid time off.

Two years ago, House Resolution 2564, the Paid Vacation Act of 2009, sponsored by former Representative Alan Grayson, a Democrat from Florida, would have mandated one-week breaks for workers in companies with more than 50 employees, and two weeks in companies with more than 100.

Almost anywhere else in the world, such legislation would be laughably inadequate, but in the U.S., conservative bloggers excoriated it as wildly radical. The bill was left to die.

Some say that if Americans had more time, they’d simply spend it watching more television. And perhaps they would, but probably only at first. For it is in countries where people work the longest that they spend the most time watching the tube -- Japan, South Korea and the U.S.

In short-work countries such as the Netherlands and Norway, people have enough energy after work to engage in more active and satisfying leisure. Think about it: When do you feel most like flopping on the couch and channel-surfing? When you’re exhausted.

Time for life may be the greatest difference between the social-democratic, softer capitalisms of Europe and the market- fundamentalist American model. Surely any economy based on the “greatest good” would take seriously the need for leisure, which philosopher Josef Pieper called “the basis of culture.”

But wouldn’t that make us less competitive? Apparently not. In their book “Raising the Global Floor,” Jody Heymann and Alison Earle use data from the World Economic Forum to show that countries with generous policies affecting work time are every bit as competitive as the U.S. and other workaholic nations, and do not have higher unemployment rates.

Vacation Pays

Moreover, Leslie Perlow and Jessica Porter of Harvard Business School have shown that requiring time off results in better economic performance. They conducted a study wherein a Boston-based company provided two control groups. The first worked long hours (50 or more a week), skipped part of their vacations and were constantly on call. The second worked a 40- hour week, took full vacations, and left their BlackBerrys at the office.

At the end of their study, Perlow and Porter found that those on time-off teams reported higher job satisfaction, greater likelihood that they could imagine a long-term career with the firm and higher satisfaction with work/life balance.

No surprise there. But the time-off control group also reported increased learning and development and better communication with their teams and, most surprisingly, they actually produced more total output than their workaholic colleagues.

Many exhausted American workers might find these results refreshing.

(John de Graaf is a co-author of “Affluenza: The All- Consuming Epidemic”; the executive director of Take Back Your Time, a group that advocates for more vacation and leave time; and a coordinator of the Happiness Initiative. David K. Batker is the director of Earth Economics, a non-profit organization that promotes a sustainable, fair and prosperous economy. This is an excerpt from their new book, “What’s the Economy For, Anyway: Why It’s Time to Stop Chasing Growth and Start Pursuing Happiness, to be published Nov. 8 by Bloomsbury Press. The opinions expressed are their own.)

To contact the writers of this article: John de Graaf at jodg@comcast.net David K. Batker at Dbatker@eartheconomics.org

To contact the editor responsible for this article: Mary Duenwald at mduenwald@bloomberg.net