skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Immigration is highly regulated by the federal government, not that you would know it from the headlines or your favorite cable news network.
One specific type of visa is the H1-B visa which is specifically available for "workers in short supply" meaning highly skilled technical employees that perform jobs that there are literally unable to be filled because there are not enough US citizen employees with the necessary high-tech skill sets. Often the foreign workers that fill these visas are in fact the products of our own US Universities.
However, the capped limit of these visas has not increased in years from its current level of 85,000. Applications for these visas are submitted every year on April 1st and are often filled within a matter of days.
But with the current downturn, lawmakers are easily succumbing to the urge to pass protectionist measures at every turn. One such measure limited any companies receiving TARP funds from applying for H1-B Visas.
Now the problem with this is that the highly skilled workers represented by the H1-B Visas perform the jobs that will pull us out of recession. For every highly skilled worker that a company employs, it generally employs multiple lower skilled employees as support. These aren't crap jobs either, these are lab technician, computer programming, grant writing, office management positions, intellectual property jobs.
But it goes beyond a strict calculus of jobs, H1-B Visa employees are also much more entrepreneurial than the average American worker. Therefore, after they have worked in these high tech positions and learned from their employers it is highly likely that they will spin off from their employer to create a new business venture. This is a function not of their nationality, but of their high level of education and specialized (and valuable) skill sets. Thus, with these workers, our country is importing economic development. This is the last import that we want to be restricting during a recession.
Now the current worldwide downturn has leveled some of the playing fields, the first worldwide economies to get going again will undoubtedly be working from a position of strength for possibly the next 50 years. At the same time that the US is shutting these valuable workers out, other countries, often their home countries, are developing the resources to put them to work elsewhere. The longer that the US pushes these workers away, not only do they forgo the economic development caused in the short term by these workers, but they undermine the US's position in the world of where the best and brightest want to be to seek their fortunes.
While in general, immigration restrictions should be opened up to more individuals, this specific type of immigration is far more necessary than our leaders seem to acknowledge.
Jeffery Joerres, CEO of Manpower, Inc. apparently agrees with me.
In a reluctant foray into politics, Mr Joerres says the US is shooting itself in the foot by having too low a limit on the number of non-immigrant visas it issues, meaning that the work permits tend to run out by May every year.
"That's just wrong," he says. "The growth of this country came from people who were not American but were classically American - who came here from another country with an idea, developed it and created employment. Two-thirds of Silicon Valley companies were started by people not born in the US."
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/63c190a6-4f0b-....?nclick_check=1
A line item veto allows an executive to veto portions of legislation "line-by-line" before signing it into law. Currently a vast majority of state governors (43?) have some form of a line item veto power.
Congress previously passed a line item veto power for the president in 1996. The Line Item Veto Act of 1996 was struck down by the US Supreme Court in 1998 in the case of Clinton v. City of New York.
The previous Line Item Veto Act was ruled unconstitutional for failing the "presentment" clause of Art. 1, section 7 of the Constitution. The presentment clause states that once the president is presented with a bill, "if he approves, he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it (veto), with his objections". The Supreme Court reasoned that these are the only and exclusive options available to the president and apply to the bill in its entirety. Therefore, what the president signed into law after using a line item veto was not the same bill as was originally presented.
John McCain, Russ Feingold, and Paul Ryan have introduced a new Line Item Veto Act. The goal of the veto is the same as it was before, "to curb 'pork barrel' spending."
The proposed procedure is a little different, as the sponsors hope that this would meet Constitutional scrutiny. However, Feingold and McCain have little respect for the Constitution anyways, so I can't imagine that they spent much time checking this one out either.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipartisan_Campaign_Reform_Act
From what I have read so far, the new proposed line item veto is actually a "rescission power" whereby by "vetoing" an element of the bill, the president in his Executive power is refusing to fund the item. Congress then has a fast track ability to introduce a separate bill to specifically fund the item.
The count will soon be considering the fate of the Estabrook Dam on the Milwaukee River.
This JS article covers many of the basics.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/40760502.html
In summary, the Estabrook Dam is the last (in terms of distance) dam on the Milwaukee River before it reaches Lake Michigan. The dam was a CCC project in the 1930's. The dam impoundment creates the lake in Milwaukee's Lincoln Park. Like most of the Milwaukee River, the riverbed (and especially the sediment built up behind the dam contains toxic buildup (PCB's, heavy metals, and other contaminants) most likely from industrial waste dumped into nearby Lincoln Creek between 1930's and 1970's.
Due at least in part to delayed required maintenance (originally required in 1995, and still not performed) the current estimates are that it will cost $2M to remove the dam and $12M to replace the dam.
The question becomes, should the dam be removed or replaced?
Now, a similar decision was made 15 years ago with the North Avenue Dam, first to open it (1995) then to remove it (1997).
North Avenue Dam circa 1974:
http://collections.lib.uwm.edu/cdm4/item....ISOBOX=1&REC=18
View from Pedestrian bridge across Milwaukee River at site of old dam circa 2007:
http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=h....N%26start% 3D36
As you can see the river now flows unimpeded in a narrower and faster flowing channel. The previous impoundment bed has regrown and now has walking/biking trails. As part of the dam remediation, the most contaminated portion of the riverbed (North Ave. to the dam site) has been encapsulated through the creation of a rapids as seen in the picture above.
I am whole heartedly support the result that came from the removal of the North Ave. Dam. Here you can find a write up that I did about a canoe trip that I took on the Milwaukee River with my father.
http://www.iofthenorth.com/2008/10/milwaukee-river.html
With the success at North Ave., why is it not a foregone conclusion that the same should be done at Estabrook? I'm going to lay out what I view as the positives and the negatives of this proposal.
10 Reasons to Remove Estabrook Dam
1) The removal of the dam will allow for a more free flowing river, this increases the oxygenation of the water, supporting "higher quality" of fish such as trout, salmon, and pike. This is supported by the return of these fish to the section of the river former blocked by the North Ave. dam.
2) The species diversification is not limited to fish, but to other animals that hunt these fish (otters and osprey for example).
3) The return of the river to its original bed will increase the current park land within Lincoln park, as well as the yards of those residents that own property at the river's edge. This increased park land would connect to the similar park land currently above North Ave. and allow for extension of those trails.
4) It is being recognized that the unoffical "park" surrounding the Milwaukee River through the North East side of Milwaukee is one of the city's great assets, allowing everyone within the city access to a relatively natural park without having to leave the city. The extension of the natural portion of this park would be promoted by the dam removal. The exposed parts of Lincoln Park are already developed and provide the developed portion of the park system.
5) Going back to the fish, fish such as salmon, sturgeon, and trout travel up river to spawn, currently they can only travel as far up as the Estabrook Dam. This leaves limited space for the natural support of these fish populations within Lake Michigan. Removal of the dam would increase their spawning areas, including access to Lincoln Park Creek. This would help increase the populations of the fish at the top of the food chain in Lake Michigan.
6) The contaminated sediment behind the Estabrook Dam is the largest remaining source of toxic contaminants in the Milwaukee River system. The #1 source of all contamination is farm run off from well outside of the Milwaukee County area, but this is the largest sources within the county.
7) Philosophically, the river should be returned to its natural state, in the built environment that we live in, preservation and return of natural areas is more valuable because it is a limited resource.
8) The old conventional wisdom was that flood control required dams and artificial river channels. This is falling out of favor for flood control projects, with a new preference for returning the river to its historic bed, and the use of traditional flood plains combined with overflow causeways to control flooding. If the dam were to be removed, the old bed of the impoundment (then mostly park) would serve the same function of accomodating flood water without placing any additional structures at risk.
9) The delayed maintenance on the dam has made it an uninviting area, a health risk, and an eyesore.
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=firef.....00228&t=h&z=19
Look at all the logs and crap backed up behind the dam. This is visible from Google Maps!
10) Replacing the dam will cost an estimated $10M more. With the county facing budget problems as it is, is the $10M more worth it in the face of all of these other benefits that would accrue if it isn't spent?
10 Reasons to Replace Estabrook Dam
1) The dam itself is a historic location, originally built as a CCC project, its design was considered innovative at the time and has inspired other dam designs, including Kletzch Park Dam above it.
2) In addition to the historic nature of the dam, the impoundment created by the dam provides the lake in Lincoln Park. Like Milwaukee's other major parks (Lake Park, Washington Park) Lincoln park was designed by Frederic Law Olmstead, the designer of Central Park in New York. The shape of the impoundment and the islands were designed with the park (the eastern of the two large islands is a nature preserve with no foot access). Therefore, a major feature of this historic park would be substantially changed.
3) The impoundment is the largest body of water within the county(?) and allows motor boat access, removal of the dam would eliminate this recreational ammenity.
4) The property values of residents living on this unique resource will be reduced upon its elimination.
5) The removal of the dam will undoubtedly release large quantities of the contaminated sediment before the majority of it can be encapsulated/removed. This will harm plants/animals below all the way to Lake Michigan.
6) The effectiveness and longevity of the remediation undertaken at North Ave. is still unknown. As much of the contamination is still there, it still poses some threat. If the sediment behind Estabrook Dam is left untouched, it has a measurable effect that can be monitored and maintained.
7) Remediation of the riverbed to encapsulate/remove the contaminated sediment will be much more expensive than the $2M estimate accounts for.
8) Philosophically, we live in a built environment, while the river ran unencumbered at one time, that was 80 years ago. The city has developed around the current boundaries of the impoundment and this development should be respected.
9) If the dam is removed, the river is dammed again a few mile further up at Kletzch Park. Therefore, the increase in flowing water is minimal and the available area for predator fish is limited.
10) Certainly any dam replacement is going to cost more since it would necessarily require at least partial deconstruction of the current dam. $10M for a modern dam that will be a valuable public infrastructure investment is a reasonable amount. A modern dam design can can incorporate "fish ladders" or other improvements that promote the travel of species above the dam, can better perform its current tasks of flood control, and could incorporate other technologies such as a hydro-power generator that could provide power to the surrounding parks.
After listening to both of my "Top Ten Lists," I hope that the dam is replaced.
The city and especially Lincoln Park have been built up around the river in its current configuration. This didn't apply to the area above North Ave, as it was at the bottom of the river valley, where there isn't development anyways (my own neighborhood's Cambridge Woods), and Riverside park is overgrown down to the river now, where it once wasn't.
To remove the Estabrook Dam ignores the last 80 years of development and use of this area.
As an example, Lincoln Park is the site of the Blatz Pavilion, a county owned, recreation building that is currently not (or limitedly) used. As shown by the success of Alterra on the Lake (agreeing in principle to an increase in rent from ~$900/month to ~$11,000/month! in trade for a 15 year lease) http://www.jsonline.com/news/milwaukee/40933717.html and the recent efforts at the Bradford Beach Beach House, show that the lease of county buildings to private businesses can be a huge boon to both the county and recreational amenities.
A privately operated pavilion could have a boat launch and docks for a cafe, bar?, restaurant, paddleboat/canoe rentals. It is the type of leveraging of our public resources that can take advantage of the the renewed interest in the Milwaukee River Corridor.
On another point, a recent study
http://dnr.wi.gov/fish/lakemich/MILWAUKEE_RIVER_rpt_Final.pdf
suggests that the North Avenue dam was the major impediment to improving the entire river system. After the dam removal, the entire river upstream has seen major increases in species diversification, even above the Estabrook Dam. A modern dam could be designed with fish ladders or other features that promote species migration to further these increases.
Finally, I don't have any information about it, but I would have to think that any dam project would require at least partial remediation of the contaminated sediment backed up behind the dam currently. In the end, the removal, encapsulation, and/or treatment of the contaminated sediment is an important aspect of improving the quality of the river. This can (and would be) accomplished without removing the dam itself.
Trinity College has released their third survey of American religion (1990, 2001). http://www.americanreligionsurvey-aris.org/
This survey is generally regarded as one of the most respected religion surveys of the US Population. The fact that this is the third time that this survey was conducted, allows for comparison of religious preference over the last 20 years.
The data in this survey matches reasonably well with the US Census estimate published in 2008.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/tables/09s0074.pdf
Therefore, we can reasonably rely on these numbers as a relatively accurate reflection of the US religious makeup.
The general conclusions from both studies are that non-specified "Christian" - (non-denominational churches, mega-churches, "evangelical" affiliation) are increasing, even while overall percentage of all "Christain" identifiers has slightly decreased.
Also, the category of "none" (lumped atheist, agnostic, deist) has shown the strongest growth over this time period, now representing nearly 1 in 6 US adults.
We even elected a president with questionable religious affiliation, or at least that does not make it a centerpiece of his public/personal life.
The growth of these two religious affiliations has been at the expense of what I would call "traditional" protestant religions - Baptist, Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopal. Catholics have remained relatively the same, presumably due to an increased immigration from traditionally Catholic countries.
While typically immigrant populations tend to be more religious as a whole, the Trinity study found this to be not true for Asian immigrants. This population group showed a higher rate of answering "none" than average, additionally the US population has also seen a decline in overall Eastern Religion identification.
Posts
