Hague Secretary General Applauds Peter Thomas Senese & I CARE Foundation's Effort To Stop Child Abduction This Christmas

During the Christmas holiday season, international parental child abduction around the world dramatically increases as would-be abducting parents are implementing their carefully planned out schemes to illegally remove their child from the other parent's life. Sadly, many targeted parents are not aware that these elaborate schemes are underway until it's too late. It is imperative that we do everything that we can to ensure children are protected from abduction because the reality is, that children of abduction, regardless if they are taken by a stranger or a parent, are emotionally, spiritually, and often severely physically abused. Once a child is kidnapped there is no guarantee that they will be coming home. Too many children never come home: they can't. They're gone forever. In order to protect against international child abduction schemes that revolve around the wrongful detention of a child, the I CARE Foundation has created the International Travel Child Consent Form. With an estimated 85% of all international parental abductions dealing with a child being wrongful detained in a foreign country, it is geared at potentially preventing the majority of these types of parental kidnappings. In the short time that this ground-breaking abduction prevention tool has been in use, not only has it made an enormous impact in the world of international child abduction, but it has also been acknowledged by major child abduction prevention stakeholders around the world, including Hague Conference on Private International Law Secretary General Mr. Christophe Bernasconi, who stated:

"I have had the possibility to look at the travel form and must say that I am impressed: this is the most comprehensive document of its kind that I have seen so far and there is little doubt in my mind that this is a most valuable and important effort to prevent child abduction. I applaud your efforts and wish to congratulate you and your team . . . It is really impressive to see how quickly your international travel child consent form has started to yield practical results and how well you monitor its operation - this really is remarkable."

Peter Thomas Senese, the I CARE Foundation's Executive Director, reports on the success of the Travel Consent Form thus far:

To the best of our knowledge, since the creation of the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, all children traveling abroad from Hague Convention signatory countries who were expected to return to their country of original jurisdiction have come home. There have actually been several cases where one parent initially refused to sign the International Travel Child Consent Form, and in each of those cases, the overseeing judge would not permit travel. At that point additional measures were put into place in order to prevent a future parental abduction.

It is critical for all parents who are allowing a child to travel abroad to understand is that there are numerous traps and schemes that a would-be abductor will use in order to legally keep a child abroad. Most of these schemes revolve around Articles 12 and 13 of the Hague Convention of the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. Defending against these potential strategies is critical. It is the thrust of the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form. And with tens of thousands of children around the world targeted for international parental abduction each year, our travel consent form may be the most effective tool that could help prevent abduction or help return a child to their country of original jurisdiction under the spirit of Article 2 of the Hague Convention.

For those parents that are allowing or are required to allow a child to travel to a foreign country need to strongly consider having the other parent sign the International Travel Child Consent Form. Should that parent not be willing to, this is a very serious warning sign that they may be planning an abduction. Another critical part of protecting children from international abduction... and this is so important... is being aware of the WARNING SIGNS of international parental child abduction... something as simple as a little education. The other vital piece of information is knowing what to do if an international parental child abduction is in progress. The truth is, all parents should be aware of the these things, but If you should happen to be a parent in a high-conflict relationship, especially if your partner has ties abroad, you would be considered in a category of extreme risk. Today we live in a world that embraces the idea of global citizenship, we have individuals from different countries that travel abroad. These individuals may eventually meet someone and enter into a relationship resulting in a child. So, things go well for a while and then the relationship starts to develop problems that may lead to a separation or divorce. In multi-cultural relationships, when this happens, it is not uncommon for the non-national individual to want to take the child and permanently relocate back to their country of origin. Knowing that the other parent is not going to allow this to happen, the parent that is wanting to leave often creates an elaborate scheme and illegally removes the child from the country, despite court orders or the other parent's wishes. At risk parents... those parents that are involved in child custody disputes, separation or divorce must be proactive in protecting their children. Often, parents that are involved in international child custody disputes and who may be targeted for abduction think that their child is best protected from abduction when there is a court agreement in place for the child to return if the other parent is granted travel. The truth is that unless there is an International Travel Child Consent Form that has immediate ramifications attached to it, the parent and child targeted for abduction are at serious risk.

Secretary General Christophe Bernasconi: How You Can Prevent International Abduction

While the winter holiday season is often one which presents many opportunities for festive family celebrations, it is also a period in which sadly more parental child abductions occur. As a result, it is more important than ever to take steps to prevent the wrongful removal of children so that abductions which are covered by the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction do not occur in the first place. Prevention can be achieved in several ways. For example, when one parent intends to travel with his or her child without the other parent, the other parents consent to the travel should first be obtained. One of the ways a parent can demonstrate that they have the approval of the other non-travelling parent is by having him or her sign a clear, comprehensive travel consent form which includes a statement that the non-travelling parent agrees to the travel but also that the child is to return to his/her place of habitual residence on or before a specific date. A model travel consent form for this purpose has recently been developed by the I CARE Foundation and is, I understand, already widely used by parents in various jurisdictions. Use of the I CARE Foundation's comprehensive Hague-centric travel form that addresses key aspects of the Hague Child Abduction Convention pertaining to a child's international travel are central to protecting against a child's wrongful retention abroad. The I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent form and similar comprehensive models deserve further encouragement so as to prevent child abduction and perhaps even limit instances of child trafficking in general. The Hague Conference on Private International Law, the Secretariat for the Hague Child Abduction Convention, wishes the I CARE Foundation and its constituents a happy holiday season and hopes that precautions such as the one described above are able to prevent unnecessary anxiety and trauma for parents and children who are affected by holiday travel plans. With Best Wishes, Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General The Hague Conference on Private International Law

A recent press release regarding the International Travel Child Consent Form not only shares the support from Secretary General Bernasconi but also other top lawyers and judges from around the world. You can view this release HERE.

The Would-Be Parent Abductor's Scheme:

As part of a would-be abducting parent's scheme, their lives become filled with deceit. As part of their elaborate plan for abduction, the would-be abducting parent may create a facade of being happily married and committed to their relationship, all while planning on how to get the child abroad. A common scenario might be for the would-be abductor to state that it would be nice if they could travel to their country of origin for what might appear to be a family vacation to visit a sibling or parents over the holidays. When the family arrives in the foreign country, the would-be abducting parent may file false claims of abuse and neglect against the other parent. Once this is done, they notify the other parent that they and the child will not be returning back to the country of original jurisdiction. At this point, the targeted parent is generally forced to return back home without their child where they then need to seek legal assistance. Multiple studies have shown that an unprecedented number of abductions have occurred where one parent took action to deprive the other parent of contact with their child. The majority of abducting parents typically use the child as a tool to cause the targeted parent great pain and suffering. Their intent is simple: to make the other parent suffer as much as possible by depriving that targeted parent with the love and connection to their own child. Nearly every published study on this subject has concluded that an abducting parent has significant, and typically, long-term psychological problems and may in fact be a danger to their child. This is the reality for hundreds of thousands of families. However, we can stop parental abduction. Awareness is the key.

Protecting Children From Abduction: U.S. Rates Of Abduction Decline

In 2011, the I CARE Foundation commenced formal operations with the mission to protect children from abduction. And since that time, there has been a decline in the rate of reported abductions originating from the United States. Certainly we are not alone in our efforts, but there is no question that our outreach efforts have made a incredible impact on the lives of the families that we have voluntarily assisted. It was forecasted that in 2011 there would be a increase of 25% in the abduction growth rate, but in actual fact, reported abductions declined by over 15%. During 2012, the actual reported abduction rate dropped by over 16%. After nearly 30 years of growth in the international parental child abduction rate, to see a decline for two consecutive years is pretty remarkable! It is anticipated that we will see another significant decline in the rates for 2013. Although worldwide abduction rates have not been reported since 2008, this has little to do with the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference, but instead a failure by signatory countries to report their inbound and outbound abduction rate. However, it is believed that the global rate of abduction continues to steadily climb out disturbing rates. With the worldwide launch and utilization of the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, there is the expectation that the actual global rate of abduction will start to decline. There are two critical programs available to U.S. parent citizens that may aid in the prevention of their U.S. child citizen from being internationally abducted. The Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program (CPIAP) is one of the Department of State's most important tools for preventing international parental child abduction. Parents are able to register their U.S. citizen children under the age of 18 in the Passport Lookout System. If at some point a passport application is submitted for a child that is registered in the CPIAP, the Department of State contacts and alerts the parent(s). This system provides the parent(s) with advance warning of possible plans for international travel with the child. The Charleston Passport Center is responsible for administering the Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program:

U.S. Department of State Passport Services, Charleston Passport Center Attn: Children's Passport Issuance Alert Program 1269 Holland Street, Building D Charleston, SC 29405

E-mail: ChildrensPassports@state.gov Phone: 1-888-407-4747 Fax: 843-746-1827

The Prevent Departure Program (PDP) is another critical tool used in the fight to protect children from international abduction. In the past, American parents at risk of having a child illegally removed from the United States had to deal with the reality that it was extremely difficult to stop an international child abduction if the other parent possessed a right of American citizenship (sole or dual citizenship). Part of the problem is that the United States has limited exit controls and government published information regarding programs that could be utilized to stop international parental child abduction such as the Prevent Departure Program require a suspected international parental child abductor to not have a right of American Citizenship, among a host of other requirements. Today, parents who are at risk of having a child internationally abducted by a parent who possesses citizenship to the United States of America or who has dual citizenship may be able to protect their children from abduction. If you should happen to be an at-risk parent that believes your child's other parent is planning or is in the process of an international parental abduction, please contact the United States Department of State's Office of Children's Issues Abduction Prevention Bureau to discuss potential measures that may be available to you to ensure the individual parent suspected of an international child abduction threat does not illegally depart the United States and remove your child in violation of a court order or in breach of your right of custody. Similarly, be sure to contact the Office of Children's Issues Prevention Bureau to discuss if there are potential prevention techniques unique to your case that may allow the Department of State to work with other federal agencies so to secure your child is not a victim of international parental child abduction. Individuals that are seeking the assistance of the Department of State and the implementation of the Prevent Departure Program should make sure that they have the following information ready to submit to the Office of Children's Issues:

1. Full name, date, place of birth of Potential taking parent.
2. Full name, date, place of birth of Potential left behind parent (and PLBP’s contact info, including a surface address).
3. Passport number and issuing country (if available, and not U.S.) for both parents.
4. Full name of child.
5. Date, place of birth of child.
6. U.S. passport number of child.
7. Passport number and issuing country of any dual national passport of child (if available).
8. Copy of court order with travel restrictions.
9. Full contact details, including a 24/7 phone and email (to email court documents, we do not have after hours fax access), for law enforcement contact.
10. Details of potential travel plans.

To contact the Department of State's Office of Children's Issues Prevention Bureau please contact:

The United States Department of State Office Of Children's Issues Abduction Prevention Bureau CA/OCS/CI SA-17, 9th Floor Washington, DC 20522-1709 Phone: 1-888-407-4747 or 202-501-4444 Email: prevention@state.gov

To contact the I CARE Foundation concerning abduction matters please email us at legal@stopchildabduction.org. Outside of the I CARE Foundation's International Travel Child Consent Form, the United States government and agencies such as the Department of State continue their remarkable work attempting to protect children from international parental child abduction. It is estimated that the Department of State successfully requests placement of 8-10 individuals on the Prevent Departure Program each month while also overseeing an estimated 60 applications for utilization on the Passport Issuance Alert Program. This has played an incredible role in the 15% and 16% decline in international parental child abduction rates during 2011 and 2012 respectively.   If you think about it, that's a lot of innocent lives that are protected... and according to a report from the Department of Justice, children who are kidnapped by a parent face severe physical abuse and are also put at an extreme risk of being murdered. In fact, Dr. Phillip Resnick, the Director of Forensic Psychiatry at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland stated in an article that was published by the Denver Post a few years ago about parental child killing, “Historically, one out of 33 homicides is a parent killing a child younger than 18.” Dr. Resnick, who conducted a study on filicide in 2005 states “Filicide, the deliberate act of a parent killing his or her own child, is the third-leading cause of death in American children ages 5 to 14.” Filicide is not a term that we talk about alot, but the reality is, we need to talk about it more. The third leading cause of death in American children. Can you imagine? According to the Denver Post reports, “Researchers estimate 250 to 300 children are murdered by their parents each year in the U.S. Now, filicide occurs everywhere... it is not a phenomenon isolated within American borders. Simply put, parents do kill children! And we can’t put our head in the sand and think this does not exist. The common misconception that parental abductions are considered a family matter has to end. Parental child abduction is a serious crime. The act of abduction leads to ongoing forms of abuse toward a child. When a child is abducted they must be immediately considered to be in great danger! It is that serious!

Peter Thomas Senese: His Advocacy And Volunteer Work Helping Children and Families In Crisis

Clearly, protecting children from parental abduction requires an indefatigable commitment to stand unbowed so children and their families may never know the nightmare that is the world of international abduction. Peter Thomas Senese has proven time and again that he is deeply committed to his goal of preventing child abduction. There are numerous sworn testimonial letters from individuals regarding the advocacy and volunteer work that Peter does each and every day. Many of these letters are related to recovering and bringing home children who were abducted or who were targeted for abduction, however there are also several letters that share his deep desire for helping others who may be facing severe medical issues. Ultimately, each one of these sworn letters shares not only a little insight, but also a unique perspective of who Peter Thomas Senese is.

Peter has been a ‘God Send’ to my young son and me. Peter has demonstrated time and time again, not only concern for me and my family, but has been willing to assist us in whatever capacity we have requested or needed of him...

The cornerstone for all his and the renown I CARE Foundation’s work originates from Mr. Senese’s fulfillment of a promise, of which, "Chasing The Cyclone" is a part. Unquestionably, our children are well-served by its publication and the kind, compassionate, and generous assistance of Mr. Senese.

Peter Thomas Senese and The I CARE Foundation provided great assistance to me and my family due to grave risk that my young child would be re-abducted to Turkey by his biological mother, who previously abducted my son under the rules of the Hague Convention. I found Mr. Senese to be extremely helpful, knowledgeable, and committed to assisting targeted children and their families. Peter spent considerable time assisting my legal team protect my son. Under his guidance, I now know my son is safe. Peter asked for nothing other than that one day I help other parents who are targeted for abduction the way I was. He is a true advocate whose activism has helped so many parents and children.

The Impact of Chasing The Cyclone:

Peter Thomas Senese, author of the critically-acclaimed novel 'Chasing The Cyclone,' about a father searching for his internationally abducted son, has had a far-reaching social impact. It is being called both a call-to-arms against the wide-spread epidemic of international child kidnapping, as well referred to as a blue-print on how to either prevent a child from being abducted, or how to reunite with your child. In addition, Chasing The Cyclone has enabled something remarkable: it has helped reunite children with their parents, as Peter Thomas Senese has so generously donated 100% of his author royalties to the I CARE Foundation. To quote Peter Thomas Senese, "The I CARE Foundation is actively trying to reunite other children who have been internationally abducted with their families. I think my readers have a deep sense of satisfaction knowing that when they purchase one of my novels, they are making a measurable difference in the life of a defenseless child - and that is pretty cool." So, in an effort to help us prevent international child abduction, please take a few moments and educate yourself about the WARNING SIGNS of international parental child abduction. It not only protects your children but perhaps other children you might know.... isn't that worth a few minutes of your time? If you would like to learn more about the criminal act and schemes of parental child abduction, or to download a free copy of the International Travel Child Consent Form visit the I CARE Foundation website. If an international parental child abduction is imminent or is in progress, click here. And lastly, to purchase your copy of Chasing The Cyclone, please visit Amazon or Barnes and Noble. Wishing you the best of the holiday season!  

The Dark Side of Cleaning Up International Adoptions: Kids Are Left in Orphanges Longer

Stricter criteria on international adoptions means more kids are left in institutions longer, which could be detrimental to their physical and mental health, says a new study from an adoption group.

Many parents looking to adopt internationally work from what seems like a logical, if romantic, playbook: we want a child, there are poor orphans overseas, so let’s help each other. Everybody wins.

The reality is now very different. Following highly publicized cases in which the adopted children were not actually orphans or willingly given up by their parents, and others in which parents found they could not manage the needs of the child they adopted—remember the woman who sent her son back to Russia?—adoption regulations have tightened considerably. Many countries, such as Russia, have closed off international adoptions altogether. Others, such as China, have restricted adoptions by parents from abroad to kids with special needs.

All of this, and the international treaty most countries signed two decades ago that regulated the process of inter-country adoption, has slowed the pace of international adoptions markedly. About 23,000 newly adopted children were brought into the U.S. in 2004. Fewer than 9,000 were welcomed into American homes last year. Globally, 30,000 fewer children per year are now being taken into new families in another country than were nine years ago. Families who in the past might have waited a year or two for a child, now have to wait many times that.

A new study by the advocacy group Donaldson Adoption Institute (DAI) reveals that the slow-down in international adoptions has had unfortunate side effects, including, primarily, “more children  remaining institutionalized for longer periods, thereby incurring greater psychic and developmental harm and diminishing their prospects of ever moving into a permanent family.” While there has been some rethinking on orphanages, studies are pretty conclusive that institutionalization of very young children can contribute to a range of lifelong effects that are almost impossible to undo, including behavioral, psychological and basic health issues.

The DAI study also found that the kids who were available for adoption now were those who needed more behavioral and developmental help. “Many countries of origin, including the largest ones such as China, are increasingly allowing inter-country adoption primarily or exclusively of children who have special needs,” the study authors write. Since children with special needs who need families are in plentiful in the U.S., this makes international adoption that much less attractive, especially as the cost of international adoption has soared, to north of $50,000. And international agencies often can’t provide parents with much information about the medical issues of their prospective child, so parents are often less equipped to deal with their child when issues arise.

The stringent criteria have also inadvertently spawned a more disturbing practice, called “re-homing,” in which parents whose adoptions aren’t working out are putting the kids up for adoption on the internet.  People simply look for new parents in the same way they might find a new owner for a dog they needed to give away when they moved house. In such unofficial bazaars children are traded with little or no government oversight, bypassing an agreement among states that authorities be notified of any transfer of custody of children between states so potential parents can be evaluated for their ability to raise children.

All of this tips over a domino-line of harm for kids who need parents. Stricter regulations meant to protect them mean they are likely to remain in institutions longer. Because they remain in institutions longer, they’re more likely to have behavioral, social and medical problems when they are adopted. Having problems after they’re adopted means it’s more likely the adoption will be what’s called “disrupted.”  And kids from disrupted adoptions are more likely to have problems in future families. Which feeds back into a disincentive to encourage international adoptions, which means countries are the less likely to loosen up their adoption procedures, continuing the cycle.

Evangelicals Battle Over ‘Biblical’ Immigration

One branch of the evangelical Christian community knows what it wants up next on America’s political agenda: comprehensive immigration reform. Another would prefer what it calls “Biblical immigration.” As Congress turns back to the business of governing ahead of the holidays, the two sides are ramping up their rhetoric–and their lobbying–with dueling interpretations of the gospels’ guidance.

For months, some Christian groups have prayed for immigration reform. For eight days in October, over 100,000 Christian backers of the Evangelical Immigration Table have asked God for guidance on the issue through “Pray4Reform” events. Next week, they plan to visit Washington and press Congressional leaders directly about the issue.

The millions of undocumented people that live in the U.S., the Evangelical Immigration Table says, should be treated with charity as the book of Matthew says Jesus was. Leaders cite the gospel passage that quotes Christ saying, “For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in.”

“Evangelicals finally realize that how we treat the stranger, these 11 million undocumented people, is how we treat Christ himself,” said Jim Wallis, the president and founder of Sojourners, a Christian social justice organization.

According to Wallis, and the leadership of the Evangelical Immigration Table, which includes the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Ethics and Religious Liberty Convention of the Southern Baptist Convention, the evangelical community has “never been more united on an issue.”

Yet, not everyone in the evangelical community agrees with Wallis. Others on the Christian right dissent, including one group of Christians who call themselves the Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration.

Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration argue that taking care of home should trump what they consider blind acceptance of foreigners. They have been openly critical of the Senate immigration bill that passed the upper chamber in late June. Kelly Kullberg, the leader of what she says is an “ad hoc movement of citizens” behind Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, says the Senate bill would grant blanket amnesty.

In June, referencing the Book of Timothy’s guidance on how to treat widows, Kullberg wrote in a letter to Congress that similar guidance should be adhered to when it comes to immigrants.

“While the Bible teaches us to be kind to the sojourner or ‘resident alien,’ it also teaches that kindness to the sojourner ought not to be injustice to local citizens and their unique culture,” Kullberg wrote. Over a thousand evangelical Christians signed the letter.

The Bible, the group says, gives more instructions when it comes to the acceptance of immigrants than just “be kind to strangers.”

“Like Ruth and Rahab, many are to be embraced,” Kullberg wrote. “We also find in the books of Nehemiah and Ezra, men who were called to build walls in order to protect, to cultivate the good and to grow a healthy culture.”

In September, Kullberg, on behalf of the Evangelicals for Biblical Immigration, sent another letter to members of the House of Representatives, calling for “biblical balance” when lawmakers consider immigration reform.

A biblical approach to reform, Kullberg says, would mean considering Americans first; securing the borders to keep out criminals, making sure unemployed Americans have access to job opportunities by mandating use of E-verify.

“There is no set view,” says Mark Tooley, the president of the Institute of Religion and Democracy and a signatory of the biblical reform letter. “There are tens of millions of evangelicals and Protestants. There is no consensus on this issue.”

Polling data is mixed on that score. On one hand, data from the right leaning “immigration reduction” organization, Numbers USA, suggests that 46% of Republican evangelicals say they would deport most undocumented immigrants. Another 32% say they would deport some, but “ensure no jobs or assistance for the rest.”

A Pew Research survey from March 2013 shows, on the other hand, that 62% of white evangelical Protestants say undocumented immigrants should be allowed to stay in the U.S. legally. Forty percent believe they should be able to apply for a path to citizenship, and 35% of those surveyed said those in the U.S. illegally should not be allowed to stay.

“There are people on both sides, Tooley said. “But the people who are speaking up are on the pro-side and those that are skeptical are not represented much at all.”

The skeptics, Galen Carey, the vice president of government relations at the National Association of Evangelicals says, don’t represent as many people within the evangelical community as more conservative groups are suggesting.

“We have a large number of people enrolled in the ‘Pray for Reform’ effort and it keeps growing,” Carey said.

Wallis says one reason for that is the church’s relationship with immigrants, many of whom are evangelicals themselves. “This is a personal issue,” Wallis said. “The undocumented are our brothers and sisters within the church.”

Viewpoint: Judaism is Too Afraid Of Assimilation

Once again, we’re supposed to be wringing our hands. Every decade, another poll comes out showing that American Jews are more likely to “intermarry” and less likely to support controversial Israeli policies. This statistical one-two punch to Jewish preservationists becomes front page news—”Poll Shows Major Shift in Identity of U.S. Jews”—and Jewish philanthropies get the ammunition they need to press the urgency of the crisis: be more Jewish, or your generation will be to blame for extinguishing the everlasting light.

On one level, such crises work. Every convincing threat to Judaism and Israel leads to a strong bump in fundraising for both. But while it may yield more checks from ardent supporters, to the Jews in danger of further assimilation, such messaging begins to sound more like the desperate plea of an obsolete religion and culture than it is a relevant, compelling path to spiritual inquiry and ethical behavior.

A decade ago, when the last poll like this came out, I wrote a book— Nothing Sacred —arguing not to panic: Judaism was becoming an “open source” religion, and rather than moan at our assimilation, we should instead celebrate the incorporation of Jewish ideals into the culture at large. If we want to promote Judaism and its practices, we might need to transcend our rather primitive misconception of Judaism as a race.

It was Pharaoh who first called the Jews a “people”. The notion of a Jewish bloodline didn’t emerge until the Inquisition as a justification for executing even those Jews who had converted. And it was Hitler (repurposing a bit of Jung) who called the Jews a race.

As I look at history and the Torah, Judaism isn’t really a religion at all, but a path beyond religion. It was developed by the equivalent of recovering cult members, as a way beyond the idolatry and death worship of Ancient Egypt. Instead of “believing” things, a disparate amalgam of tribes (those mythic sons of Jacob), developed a living myth together – as well as a system of law that could be amended as civilization evolved. Everything from the Sabbath to the US Constitution came out of these insights and this continuous process of revision and renewal.

By applying the techniques of the census taker to the Jewish people (a practice actually forbidden in Talmud – we’re not allowed to count ourselves) the would-be protectors of Judaism are practicing a dangerous game with diminishing returns. Amazingly, when I suggested as much after the 1999 poll, I was banned from speaking at events funded by the most centrist of Jewish institutional charities.

Yes, the core tenets of Judaism are radical. They suggest that human beings are responsible for this realm. They insist that our racial labels, and even our nation states, are mere social constructions. The principles of Judiasm are as progressive as the ideas of Buddhism or the Tao —systems of thought that have attracted many of the Jews now being blamed for the current exodus.

All Judaism needs to do is bite its tongue and stop putting this frightened, scarcity-based logic at the forefront of its effort to engage its people. Instead, spend as much time just doing and celebrating whatever Judaism means to you. The rest will follow.

9 Ways to Simplify Your Finances Now

If managing personal financial affairs were easy, we probably wouldn’t graduate nearly 70,000 accountants each year. Budgets, credit cards, insurance, retirement savings and more—it’s a lot to track, and things are getting more complex all the time.

A lot of people are losing the battle. One in three adults who say their finances have taken a turn for the worse also say their finances have grown more complex, according to a survey from Aite Group and Chase Blueprint. Likewise, 43% of those who say their finances have improved also say their finances have grown less complex.

Simple is good. It’s understandable. It’s manageable. It doesn’t eat up a lot of time. It breeds confidence and makes tough decisions easier. “The financial frenzy people experience comes from being disconnected from their personal income,” says Melody Juge, managing director at Life Income Management.

Some things can’t be made simple. Income tax filing comes to mind, at least for some people. So do retirement account distributions. You can’t know how long you’ll live. But other things don’t have to be so difficult. Maybe you can get control of your money with a few simple tricks. Here are nine ways most Americans can simplify their personal finances:

• Get down to one mutual fund You’ll get great asset allocation and solid diversification within asset groups with just one target-date mutual fund. These are the fastest growing corner of the retirement savings world precisely because they are so darned simple. Choose a target-date fund for the year you turn 65 or 70, put all your retirement savings in it and go about the rest of your life knowing you have professional management and an asset allocation that will become more conservative as you age. Of course, there are drawbacks and you’ll have to look out for expenses when you choose. But investing for the long haul has never been simpler.
• Keep two credit cards Dump the rest. You will save a bundle in annual fees and rid yourself of umpteen bills and solicitations. Use one card for monthly spending and the other only when you must carry a balance. Keep cards with the lowest interest rates or annual fees, or those that offer useful rewards.
• Pay bills online Most banks offer an online bill-pay service for no charge. Stamps, envelopes and physical checks are an obsolete expense. You’ll save time too. But best of all, your bank will automatically keep track of what you spend and where you spend it for easy review, which makes budgeting a lot simpler.
• Choose one financial institution Large financial firms offer the same basic range of services and accounts. You can probably get everything you need in one place. Stick with one. You’ll not only get better service as a bigger customer but cut down on monthly statements and get a better picture of your overall finances.
• Automate everything Arrange for direct deposit of your paycheck to eliminate trips to the bank. Arrange for regular payroll or bank account debits to your retirement account—and for automatic increases in the amount as you get pay raises—to keep savings on track. Arrange automatic monthly payments via your online bill pay system to creditors to cover the minimum due and avoid late fees.
• Get overdraft protection Link your checking account to your savings account to avoid the cost and hassle of overdrawing your account.
• Create an emergency fund The goal is to set aside six months of living expenses to guard against unexpected expenses that derail your plans. But don’t let what may seem a large sum deter you. Start with $500, which is enough to cover the cost of most minor household emergencies. Add $100 a month until you reach your goal.
• Pay yourself first You should be saving at least 10% of what you make every month. Write that check first and budget to live off of what’s left.
• Get organized through new technologies Account aggregation through your bank or a service like Mint.com will allow you to view all your accounts in one place, says Linda Sherry, national priorities director at Consumer Action. She also recommends using a password manager like 1password or Dashlane to simplify your online transactions from any device, and setting up a folder in email for increasingly common online account statements.

What Obamacare Means for Corporate Retiree Insurance Coverage

The news that Time Warner and IBM are changing retiree health-insurance benefits has some claiming the moves are proof that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is drastically eroding the employer-based health-insurance system it promised to preserve and increasing costs for retired corporate workers in the process.

In truth, corporate America was already looking for ways to trim health-insurance costs, particularly for retirees, long before Obamacare came along. The benefit decisions announced by IBM and Time Warner have little direct relationship with the health care law and will not, as some have suggested, leave retirees without any insurance.

The changes at IBM relate to supplemental health benefits for retirees who already receive Medicare through the federal government. Rather than administer these additional benefits for company retirees over 65, IBM will direct former employees to a Medicare-specific insurance exchange, or marketplace, and subsidize the cost of this extra coverage. Retirees will have to participate in choosing their supplemental plans, but will ultimately have more options, according to IBM. Time Warner, the parent company of TIME, will give retired employees too young to qualify for Medicare subsidies in order to purchase coverage on their own through private exchanges that are separate from the public insurance exchanges that will open Oct. 1 as part of the ACA.

Nationwide, companies have been making similar changes for many years. According to the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation, in 1988, 66% of companies with 200 or more employees that offered insurance benefits to active employees also offered retiree health benefits. By 2008, two years before the ACA became law, the figure had dropped to 29% and is currently 28%, according to Kaiser. In 2009, a year before the ACA was signed, Xerox eliminated supplemental health benefits for retired workers who qualified for Medicare. The decision drew a lawsuit from retirees, but a federal judge ultimately ruled that the group had no legal claim against the company. “It had nothing to do with Obamacare,” says James Marino, a lawyer for the Association of Retired Xerox Employees, which filed the lawsuit.

Although Obamacare is not directly responsible for corporations cutting back and altering benefits for retirees, the law won’t do much to slow this trend. In fact, it could indirectly increase costs for companies that might, in turn, look to retiree benefits to cut spending. The law sets a minimum floor for what medical care health-insurance plans must cover. Although many corporate health-insurance plans were grandfathered in and exempted from complying with these requirements, the exemption disappears if companies make significant changes to their health-insurance offerings, which is common. Architects of the law say it will reduce the growth of overall U.S. health care spending and costs for individual medical treatments and procedures, which could reduce costs for employers, but it will be years or even decades before this promise can be evaluated on the merits.

And with the law’s public health-insurance exchanges scheduled to launch in just a few weeks, companies can point to them as viable alternatives to company-sponsored retiree coverage. Retirees in their late 50s and early 60s who don’t yet qualify for Medicare and are generally sicker than their younger counterparts currently face some of the highest health-insurance premiums in the individual marketplace. Under the ACA, insurers will no longer be able to charge these people higher rates based on health status, but the law does allow premiums to be set by age. Insurers will be able to charge the oldest enrollees in any given health plan three times as much as the youngest enrollees.

Still, for similarly aged retirees without any subsidies from their former employers — like those who worked independently or for small businesses — the Obamacare exchanges, which will offer public subsidies to low- and middle-income Americans without job-based coverage, could give the first real chance at finding affordable health insurance.

Survey: The 5 Biggest Retirement Saving Mistakes

Saving for retirement shouldn’t be a guessing game. It should begin with your first job and in most cases not stop until you are collecting Social Security. Yet millions of people struggle to do anything at all, and still more make glaring mistakes.

To help you get started and avoid common traps, Four Seasons Financial Education, a financial wellness and education provider, has identified the top five retirement mistakes of employees at its client companies:

• Over-relying on rules of thumb. Simple rules can be instrumental in getting a worker started saving early and putting them on the right path. Saving 10% of everything you make is better than being paralyzed and shooting for eight times final salary — and definitely better than having no goal at all. But rules can get you into trouble, too. The presumed 4% safe withdrawal rate in retirement is anything but perfect, and retirees with a traditional pension have far different savings needs than those without one. Use rules of thumb as a guidepost and to get started. But at some point you need a customized plan.
• Going too conservative at retirement. As you age, you should gradually reduce portfolio risk by tilting more towards bonds. The previous point notwithstanding, a useful rule of thumb is subtracting your age from 110 to arrive at the percentage of stocks you should own. You may feel old at 65 but you may also live another 30 years. You will need stocks for growth if you expect your nest egg to last that long. Asset allocation is among the most important aspects of retirement planning to get right. If you want to keep it simple, consider a target-date mutual fund which adjusts automatically.
• Taking Social Security benefits early. Although changes may occur with the Social Security system it will remain viable for many years and probably be a meaningful part of your retirement income. Your monthly benefit jumps 8% every year you delay filing between ages 62 and 70. For a lot of people, waiting to 70 and living to age 83 is the break-even point, and everything they collect from then on is a bonus.
• Failing to use a retirement calculator The web has many useful online tools and since your retirement may last 30 year or longer you need all the help you can get. Computers are a tremendous aid. Don’t guess. Some of the best tools can be found at CNNMoney, T. Rowe Price, Fidelity, Schwab and BlackRock.
• Cashing out retirement assets early Financial planners and policymakers have long puzzled over how to prevent leakage from 401(k) accounts as workers quit jobs and fail to roll over all their assets into an IRA or similar account. The temptation is mighty; especially if you have debts you want to retire. But with taxes and penalties this is a costly move. The money you saved over five years might require 10 to replace.

America’s Productivity Problem

Would you like a raise? How about more vacation? Of course you would. If you’re anything like me, one of your main motivations each day at the office is the prospect of advancing, making more money, or even earning more time off to spend on the things outside your career that matter.

The main factor that makes any of this possible is rising worker productivity. The more efficiently we do our jobs, the more our employers can justify paying us — be it in salary or leisure. And one of the economy’s main weaknesses of late has been a decline in the growth of labor productivity, a dynamic that might help explain the plight of the average American worker in recent years.

On Friday, the Labor Department announced that labor productivity rose at just 0.9% in the second quarter of this year, after falling 1.7% in the first quarter. And these numbers aren’t an anomaly: According to a report issued last week by JPMorgan Chase economists Michael Feroli and Robert Mellman, worker productivity has only grown at an annual rate of 0.7% in the past three years, after averaging 2.9% growth from 1995 to 2005.

And as Feroli and Mellman point out — and as TIME’s Rana Foroohar noted earlier this year when the JPMorgan economists identified this dynamic in a report called “Is I.T. Over?” – the decrease in productivity growth began even before the recession, and has coincided with a slowdown in technological growth, as measured by the pace in which computer equipment has become more affordable in recent years. According to the report, “Over the past few years the real price of information-processing equipment and software has declined at the slowest pace in more than a generation.”

So why does this change in the pace of technological advance matter? Economists believe one of the main factors that drive worker productivity is technology. As a firm invests in new technologies like new computers, software or high-speed internet, it enables its workers to get jobs done more efficiently. Over the past generation, we have seen an incredible decline in the price of high-tech equipment, which has driven much of our economic growth over that time period — especially during the boom years of the 1990s.

What the most recent numbers regarding prices of IT equipment imply is that the efficiency gains brought by the digital revolution may be petering out, and that will have a direct effect on our ability to become more efficient workers. And if we want to get back to the worker-productivity gains we were experiencing a decade ago, we need to somehow figure out how to encourage the kind of technological innovation that has led to previous waves of sharp productivity growth.

Of course, this raises the age-old question that economists have been arguing over for generations: What causes innovation? Conservative economists tend to believe that innovation is spawned mainly by the ingenuity of entrepreneurs. They rely on what is known as Say’s law, named after the classical economist Jean-Baptiste Say, which states that “supply creates its own demand.” When Steve Jobs designed the iPhone, for instance, there was no demand for the product. It’s creation created the demand for the product, which is now significant. Since the iPhone was launched in 2007, the smartphone market has exploded, and businesses across the world have invested in these products so that their workers can be constantly connected and work more efficiently. In this worldview, the entrepreneur is the instigator of growth, and therefore we must do what we can to avoid dampening his incentive to create.

But the entrepreneur isn’t the only source of productivity growth. Firms can simply invest more in existing technology, intellectual property, and research and development. And it turns out that growth of this sort of spending has slowed from an average of 4.7% per year in 1980 to 2000, to 2.8% per year over the past 10 years, according to the report.

And when you ask businesses why spending on R&D isn’t growing as quickly as it was in the past, or why business investment in general hasn’t rebounded as it did after past recessions, they say it’s because of a lack of consumer demand. And this is why liberals tend to argue for government stimulus to jolt the economy into what they believe will be a self-sustaining virtuous circle of higher demand and growth — especially during a time when interest rates are so low and therefore the cost of action small.

If you get the feeling there’s a certain familiarity to this argument, you’re right. The debate over why productivity growth has slowed echoes many of the political debates going on right now, with one side stressing the ingenuity of the producer class, while the other emphasizes the health of the consumer class. Ideally, an economy would have a risk-taking entrepreneurial class and a healthy and confident consumer class. Right now we have neither, and we’re not quite sure which ought to come first.

How to Get the Most from Social Security

One of the biggest mistakes retirees make is getting their Social Security benefits wrong—taking them too early or too late, or failing to coordinate with their spouse. Miscues in this area can cost thousands of dollars over the course of a retirement.

In one respect, mistakes are understandable. Getting every dollar you are eligible to receive can be painfully complicated. The economist Larry Kotlikoff, an authority on maximizing Social Security benefits, estimates that a 62-year-old couple must, before they reach 70, choose from over 100 million possible combinations in terms of precisely when to take benefits and make various adjustments.

In another respect, though, getting Social Security seriously wrong is inexcusably negligent. The typical retiree counts on Social Security for 70% of his or her income. About one in four retirees has no other ready source of funds, and in the 401(k) age even those with a decent nest egg may have no other stream of guaranteed lifetime income.

The good news is that for the vast majority of retirees, getting the calculus right on Social Security should be easy. It only gets complicated in a handful of relatively unusual situations: 1) when spouses of very different ages both have earned income and one income is significantly larger than the other; and 2) when you want to keep working late in life.

The basic rule is to delay benefits to age 70 if at all possible. That way you get the highest possible monthly payout, which will keep coming for as long as you live. You become eligible for early but reduced benefits at age 62 and full benefits between 65 and 67, depending on the year you were born. But for every year that you delay taking full benefits, the monthly payout you eventually receive increases until age 70, when you max out your income stream.

Consider someone born in 1937. Their normal retirement age was 65 (true for anyone born before that). If they started collecting at 62, they got just 80% of their full monthly benefit. But if they waited to age 70 they got 132% of their full monthly benefit. The math is similar at all age groups. Those born in 1960 have a normal retirement age of 67 (true for anyone born after that). If they choose to collect at age 62 they’ll get just 70% of their full benefit but if they wait to age 70 they’ll get 124%.

These are meaningful differences. The typical monthly benefit today is around $1,200. That would mean a 76-year-old who took early benefits is getting $960 a month while one who waited to age 70 is getting $1,584. Schwab figures that by the age of 81 a top-earning retiree who delayed benefits comes out marginally ahead, and everything they receive the rest of their life is a bonus. The math is a little different for everybody; your beak-even may be age 83 or 84. You can estimate your break-even point with an online calculator.

A lot depends on your health. If you are in poor health, it may make sense to start collecting as early as possible. If you and your partner are in decent shape, however, you stand a good chance of one or both getting past the break-even point. Your main consideration should be whether you could get by on savings and other income until you reach age 70 — but if the answer is yes, the safe bet is to assume you or your spouse will live long enough to benefit from the near-term sacrifice. As Kotlikoff writes: “Social Security benefits are an insurance policy against one of life’s most expensive accidents: failing to die on time. Unless you or your partner has a terminal condition, you probably should figure on living to 100 for the simple reason that you might.”

Once you’ve considered delaying, the next big planning point for couples is managing spousal benefits. A lower earning spouse is entitled to three types of benefits: one based on his or her own earnings; a benefit equal to half the higher earning spouse’s benefit; and a survivor benefit equal to the higher earning spouse’s benefit after he or she dies.

A common strategy is to begin collecting the lower-earning spouse’s benefit early but delay the higher-earning spouse’s benefit to age 70. This gives you some income now and will max out the biggest benefit. It also ensures that the second to die will be left with the highest monthly income stream possible from Social Security.

But there is no cookie-cutter approach. You might also be better off filing for benefits at normal retirement age, triggering the spousal benefit for a low-earning partner, and then suspending your own benefits until age 70. This is the kind of complex strategy that can stretch income but probably requires the eye of a professional. Couples can get more timing tips here. In general, it’s also a good idea to postpone early benefits for as long as you have income from a job above $15,120.

Perhaps the biggest trap to avoid is thinking that you should grab what you can while it’s still there. Social Security is projected to have all the funds it needs for at least two decades. So relax. You have time. Yes, sorting it all out can be complicated. But the basic rules will work for most people.

Little Girls Losing Love for Barbie: Is Body Image to Blame?

Toymaker Mattel announced disappointing earnings yesterday, missing analysts projections by $0.10 per share. One reason profits were discouraging has been the decline in popularity of the iconic Barbie doll, sales of which fell 12% — the fourth quarter in a row that Barbie turnover declined year-over-year.

According to Felicia Hendrix, an analyst at Barclays, part of the reason for slumping Barbie sales is that toy buyers are increasingly attracted to Mattel’s other offerings like the American Girl Doll and the Monster High Dolls — a line of part-human, part-monster teens launched three years ago. Of course, this raises the question: Why, after more than 50 years of massive popularity, are little girls turning their backs on Barbie?

One possible explanation is body image. Traditionally, Barbie has been criticized for her too-thin frame, heavy makeup, and impossibly large cup-size, and some parents may now be deciding to give their little girls dolls that are, shall we say, a bit more flawed. Mary Shearman, a PhD candidate in gender, sexuality and women’s studies Simon Fraser University, speculated in an article in the Globe and Mail that Mattel may find themselves leaning on their non-Barbie dolls more and more as parents and children seek out more relatable dolls:

“There was a sense that you wanted to expose little girls to role models that were a little more diverse and not so stereotypical, so they tried to make Barbie active and gave her all kinds of activities to do and tried to make her more interesting than a beauty queen.”

Parents have reason to be anxious. In a 2006 study at the University of Sussex, researchers compared the effects of exposing five-to-eight-year-old girls to images of Barbie versus images of Emme — a full-figured doll that has been endorsed by the American Dietetic Association to help promote positive body image. Those girls exposed to Barbie reported lower body esteem and a greater desire to be thin. The study concluded, “Early exposure to dolls epitomizing an unrealistically thin body ideal may damage girls’ body image, which would contribute to an increased risk of disordered eating and weight cycling.”

So what are the alternatives to Barbie? American Girl dolls look a lot more like, well, girls. They’re chubby-cheeked, freckled, and breast-less. But each doll costs over $100 with the average American Girl Doll owner spending over $500 per doll on accessories — a much steeper price tag than Barbie.

That leaves the wildly-popular Monster High dolls. Mattel asserts that they convey a healthy message to growing girls. “The message about the brand is really to celebrate your own freaky flaws, especially as bullying has become such a hot topic,” Cathy Cline, Mattel’s vice president of marketing, told NPR. The dolls thus tap into the well-established tween market of embracing one’s inner freak and, if skyrocketing sales are any indication, parents are on-board with the message.

While the Monster High message about self empowerment might assuage parents concerns, the Monster High dolls still sport a ridiculously small body frame. In fact, the popular Draculara may be even thinner than Barbie—the dolls arms are so skinny that you have to take off their hands to get their clothes on.

Adriana Valez, a staff writer for the blog Stir by CafeMom and a mom herself, points out, “The dolls don’t come in all different shapes and sizes — they’re all uniformly thin. So I love the idea that girls can have flaws, but I think we’re seeing some prescribed notions of what kinds of flaws are cool — crazy Frankenstein’s monster stitches and funky skin and eye color, certainly. Crazy clothes, for sure. But we’re not seeing the kinds of flaws girls’ typically feel badly about, or that others will bully them over: body fat, prominent nose, physical disabilities, etc.”

In the end, Mattel’s continuing production of unrealistically shaped dolls may not matter. Despite declining sales, Barbie is still the most widely sold doll in the world. As Hendrix says, “The Barbie formula has always worked. Every three-year-old girl in the world wants a Barbie doll.” While the new trend may be towards “flawed” dolls, it may be premature to predict the end of Barbie, or the rapid expansion of doll waistlines.

In fact, Valez says she would still purchase the Monster High dolls for a child, despite her concerns about their thinness. At least, Valez points out, the Monster High dolls are better than Barbie — they’re a step in the right direction. “A doll that doesn’t look like she’s trying to be an ideal woman is open to all kind of narrative possibilities. And isn’t that what we want our girls to do—to imagine all sorts of possibilities for their own lives?”

Philanthropists of the World: You’re Doing It Wrong!

As baby boomers barrel into retirement in larger numbers with better health and more energy than any previous generation, philanthropy is getting a makeover. Boomers don’t want to give time at a soup kitchen; they’d rather mentor a small business. They don’t want to throw money into the black hole of a mega-charity; they’d rather know how their money is going to be spent — and possibly have something to say about it.

This is disruption of a high order, which I explored, with co-author Ken Dychtwald, in a 2010 book, A New Purpose. Others, including the notable philosopher Peter Singer, have opined on how much the current generation of givers ought to be giving.

Now comes the self-styled philanthropist Eric Friedman with an intriguing argument about how one should give. In his forthcoming Reinventing Philanthropy: A Framework for More Effective Giving, which is scheduled to be published in September, Friedman takes all sorts of givers to task for personalizing their charity rather than weighing what most needs to be done. In his view, donors must figure out what the world needs, not what they want the world to have, and give accordingly.

“Most generous, well-intentioned donors are failing to meet their potential,” Friedman asserts. “They aren’t giving to the most impactful charities. Sometimes I felt like a jerk criticizing really good people, but it’s important to discuss this candidly.”

Friedman is hardly a household name. He’s a Chicago-area actuary who, at age 35, gives away 10% of what he makes—practicing what I’ve called Everymanthropy, giving while living in affordable chunks. He set out to give for maximum impact and quickly grew frustrated with the charitable world’s infrastructure, which he says plays to donors’ ego, self-interest, and disinclination to ask tough questions.

Friedman is not the first to attack philanthropy on such grounds. The Chinese Zen Master Chuang-Tzu argued in the 4^th century B.C. that most philanthropy was meant to further one’s own business or personal interests. The 19^th-century Frenchman Alexis De Tocqueville described philanthropy as “self-interest, rightly understood.” German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche agreed.

In New Purpose, I quote billionaire Scotsman Sir Thomas Hunter taking aim at Warren Buffett, of all people, for being a lazy giver. In 2006, Buffett pledged $31 billion to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. In doing so, Hunter told me, Buffett shirked his responsibility. “If you’re clever enough to make $31 billion…I would love to have your thinking in trying to solve the world’s seemingly intractable problems,” Hunter said. (Buffett has a different view: He believes the Gates foundation can do a better job giving away all that money than he ever could.)

Still, Friedman isn’t just throwing stones. He seems to genuinely wonder why folks who give don’t take a keener interest in relatively cheap but life-saving measures like a simple mosquito net or clean water to combat deadly illness in developing nations over things like art museums and university buildings. He’s all about giving efficiently, and to causes that address human suffering–personal passions be damned. It’s a what-matters-most approach to philanthropy that certainly de-clutters all the charitable options out there. In the end, Friedman puts forward a three-point plan for reinventing charitable giving:

• More critical thinking. Today’s dominant paradigm is giving to causes that you care about, such as your alma mater, the opera, or an illness that touched your life. But giving based on emotional ties has much less impact than giving based on trying to make the biggest dent in the world’s toughest problems, Friedman says. He adds: “We should reserve the highest praise for donors with the most altruistic motives.”
• Better vetting systems. The most popular charity evaluators focus on things like a nonprofit’s overhead and the percentage of expenditures that go directly to the cause. This is useful information but does not address whether a charity’s programs are effective. For that kind of analysis, Friedman recommends Givewell.org and givingwhatwecan.org.
• Donors need to roll up their sleeves. Only 35% of donors do any research and just 9% do more than two hours of research before giving, according to Hope Consulting. Donors should think not just about what tugs at their heart but about the world’s greatest problems and the charities that address them. “The irony is that as donors make their giving decisions based less on emotional appeals and more on evidence about what works best, the increased conviction they have in their giving will ultimately provide even greater emotional satisfaction,” Friedman writes.

I’m not sure Friedman has got it exactly right. Without an emotional response would people give as generously? Shouldn’t giving bring us joy, even if it comes at the cost of some efficiency? Should we really abandon, say, the arts, as strict adherence to Friedman’s guidelines would require? In my view, all giving is good regardless of motive. But a little more attention to what matters most probably makes sense.

Here’s Why Google Is Buying Waze, a Red-Hot Mobile Traffic App, for $1 Billion

Have you heard about Waze, the crowd-sourced navigation app? If not, you’re about to, because Google is buying this Israeli company for $1 billion. This deal could give Google a major boost in the escalating battle for advantage in the fiercely competitive mobile-mapping space — and spite Apple and Facebook for good measure.

Why would Google want to shell out more than $1 billion for a relatively unknown start-up? Three reasons: First, Waze’s collaborative, user-based approach to mapping represents a real breakthrough for mobile-navigation apps. Second, the company poses a threat to Google’s own popular Maps product, so this acquisition is a smart defensive play. Third, by buying Waze, Google is able to keep it out of the clutches of archrivals Apple and Facebook, which both have been circling the company in recent months.

As GPS-equipped smartphones have become increasingly ubiquitous, map apps have soared in popularity. For well over a year, Google and Apple have been fighting an increasingly intense battle for user loyalty in the mobile-map space, which explains why both companies have been circling Waze. Because map apps are so widely used, they’ve become a key priority for software companies in the mobile wars.

Waze, a free application currently available on the iPhone and Google Android devices, delivers a unique innovation: by incorporating real-time GPS data from its nearly 50 million users, the company delivers highly accurate and useful traffic and navigation information. Users can also edit maps with details like gas prices, speed traps, road construction and traffic accidents.

Think of Waze as the “wisdom of crowds” meets digital maps. “Join other drivers in your area who share real-time traffic and road info, saving everyone time and gas money on their daily commute,” Waze says on its website. The goal? “To outsmart traffic and get everyone the best route to work and back, every day.” Waze users receive mobile alerts about traffic hazards based on their location.

“We’re excited about the prospect of enhancing Google Maps with some of the traffic-update features provided by Waze and enhancing Waze with Google’s search capabilities,” Brian McClendon, a Google Geo vice president, wrote in a company blog post. Terms of the deal were not disclosed, but Google is reportedlyspending $1 billion in cash, plus $100 million in performance payouts to the Waze staff.

Waze’s “social” component differentiates it from the leading mobile-map apps, which happen to come from Google and Apple. For this reason, Google’s interest in the company is, in part, defensive. Often, when tech juggernauts like Google, Apple and Facebook encounter a start-up that has developed a product that poses a threat, the easiest solution is to simply buy it and remove the competition.

That’s what Facebook did when it spent $1 billlion in cash and stock to buy Instagram, which had built a superior and more popular photo-sharing service. “Buying Waze is all defense but great defense wins championships,” observed tech entrepreneur and investor Howard Lindzon.

Google’s purchase also keeps Waze out of the hands of Apple, which could have incorporated the company into its own map service, and Facebook, which might have integrated the app into its giant social network. Facebook reportedly offered Waze nearly $1 billion last month, but the talks apparently fell through over the purchase price.

“We evaluated many options and believe Google is the best partner for Waze, our map editors, area managers, champs and nearly 50 million Wazers globally,” Waze CEO Noam Bardin wrote in a company blog post. (Champs are Waze power users.) “Google is committed to help us achieve our common goal and provide us with the independence and resources we need to succeed.”

Waze, which was founded in 2007, has about 100 employees, mostly based in Israel, with offices in Silicon Valley and New York. According to the Israeli business publication Globes, which first reported news of the deal, another sticking point with Facebook was that Waze “insisted that its Israeli employees should continue working in Israel, which Facebook did not accept.”

Waze could remain an independent app, although some of its features could be incorporated into Google Maps. According to CrunchBase, the company has raised $67 million in venture-capital funding, including $30 million in its most recent round, led by Silicon Valley titan Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers and Hong Kong billionaire Li Ka-shing. Microsoft was also an early investor, but apparently did not make a bid for the company.