Friday, March 31, 2006

Project Update

The good news is that the idea caught the attention of some people in Rep. Jim McDermott’s office. One of his chiefs of staff, Damian Cordova, is interested in hearing more as I develop the idea, and might be interested in a meeting sometime.

I have an appointment with Sue Donaldson of the Washington Appleseed Foundation on April 18th. I hope I’ll be able to get some good questions and maybe work out some answers. I have a feeling this is going to take a lot more of my time as we get going.

Some of the questions that have come up:

How is this different from a normal savings account?
Who has Fiduciary Responsibility?
What is the Federal Government component that might need legislation?

Any ideas?

Tuesday, March 28, 2006

Good places for your money

Here is a list of places that I've found that enable Socially Responsible Investing.



Please contact me if you know of something that should be on this list!

Monday, March 27, 2006

End Corporate Personhood

This is a collection of links for groups that are working on ending the tyranny of Corporate Personhood.

Sunday, March 19, 2006

Texas Instruments Recommendations

Texas Instruments will be having their annual meeting on April 20th, 2006. You can view my recommendations here.

Wednesday, March 15, 2006

Privatizing Welfare

Thanks to Karen Backman for sending this article to Democracy for Washington from the Wall Street Journal:

Privatize the Welfare State, by HOWARD HUSOCK

This is a really interesting article, from a high powered advocate of changing the current system of social funding into a market driven system of private charities. There are several assumptions that Mr. Husock has made when writing this article, and quite a few questions that I have that I would like to put on the table.

It is not a certainty that “the federal government will continue to devote billions to activities known as ‘social services.’” Starting the article with that assumption shows how far away from reality the author is. The Conservatives in the Republican Party have been working hard to eliminate the social services funding that so many people in our country depend on. I don’t want to say that they want to eliminate the actual services, just the funding coming from the government. Never mind that the Constitution says it is one of the purposes of the Federal Government to ‘promote the general Welfare’.

Mr Husock refers to ‘robust public debate’ about ‘whether … parts of the New Deal legacy still make sense’. What are the positions in this debate? He doesn’t say.

Then he goes into ‘a historic confluence of circumstances’. The wave of charitable giving forgets the fact that the Baby Boomer generation is defined by it’s own watchers as the most selfish generation in history. Consumerism runs rampant, and has since the phrase ‘keep up with the Jones’ came into our lexicon. TV puts thousands of advertisements in front of our eyes on a daily basis. In the movie “Good Night, and Good Luck”, the Aluminum and Tobacco industry commercials were real. That’s how the news media was funded in the 1950’s, and the only thing that has changed since is that the corporations now own the media outlets themselves outright. Another assumption that he is presenting is that the Federal Government will be for the foreseeable future just as incompetent and unable to be responsible with the public money as it has over the last 5 years. I have to agree. As long as the Republican party is allowed to stay in power, that will be true. Remember, Cheney has said openly that “Reagan showed us that deficits don’t matter”. We knew that was false when he said it, and we’re seeing the results.

Then he comes to the concept of a new generation of social entrepreneurs. This I strongly agree with. But the question he’s not asking is why. Here’s my take. I think the non-profit industry is seeing a massive upsurge because we see the generation after the Boomers coming to terms with the fact that without this upsurge this country won’t be worth living in. Let me put it another way. The youth, meaning the children of the Boomers like me in Generation X, are seeing that the Federal Government has failed us. This administration is not keeping the promises set forward by the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence. They have been fighting against the policies of social responsibility since FDR's administration put them forward in the 1930's. And they have arranged the current political system such that we (GenX) are unable to gain access to the political process enough to be able to try and fix what we see as wrong. Paul Hackett. Debi Golden. How many others?

I'm not attacking the Boomers. I'm asking you to take a look at the world that your generation has created, and judge for yourself if that world is something you are proud of. And I'm asking you to join Generation X to fix this mess.

Let me give a personal example. I am saving money for my future. I’m saving as much as I possibly can, to the detriment of my life today. Why? Because I don’t think that Social Security will be there for me when I need it. Because I can’t trust my government to keep it’s promises. Twist that any way you wish, but that’s the way I feel. I’m going to fight until the end of time to fix the system, from within the political process and from without, but I feel so powerless politically I’m having to do everything possible to protect my own foundation. And that prevents me from donating to any of the charities and political efforts that contact me every single day, either by phone, letter or email. How many others are in my position? Too many.

So, this is a massive influx of non-profit effort, funded by the Boomers who suddenly have all their retirement benefits that corporations are trying to steal, and managed by a generation of people who are tired of seeing their civil society being destroyed by that theft.

This is something to be proud of? I don’t think so.

Monday, March 13, 2006

Taking on The Free Enterprise Action Fund

I just found this when doing a search for 'social activist investment' in Google.

http://www.freeenterpriseactionfund.com/about.html

Well, well. This reminds me of the Powell Memo.

"Business is under attack, run for the hills and plan your strategy for the next 30 years on how to take back this country!" - paraphrased of course.

Give me a break. These people may have a clue on how to put together a financial organization and buy some stock, but that's about it. They don't know what the Constitution says, they don't know the vision put forward by Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton, and I'll venture to say that they don't understand what Adam Smith wrote in 1776. I haven't read the book "Wealth of Nations" myself yet, but it's on my list. What I do know about the book is that it is an Academic work about Economic Theory, and it flies in the face of where the current US economy is going.

So, I want to address some of the accusations that are put forward on that page. Let's see what I can come up with here.

"Left-wing social and political activists are harnessing the power, resources and influence of publicly-owned corporations to advance their social and political agendas. (1) Frustrated by their failure to advance their agendas in the public political process, these activists use capitalism against capitalism under the guise of “corporate social responsibility” and “socially responsible investing.” (2) Their movement threatens shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise."

How can we not?! It's been working wonderfully for the Conservative Movement since the late 1960's, and at that point in time they were just as frustrated as we are now. It's actually the concept of "socially responsible investing" that I'm also worried about, but for different reasons. I don't think we help our causes at all by letting the money being collected by the Oil companies and the Military-Industrial-Congressional Complex continue to go into the hands of a small number of people, which is what is happening now. All companies should be investment targets, not just the ones that we like. What's the point of having 13% of the investment market if we're letting some companies get away with murder?! Literally!! What do you think Iraq is? It's murder as far as I'm concerned, but we let the oil companies and arms manufacturers get away with it and have their shareholders get all the profits because we're too 'good' to touch their stocks! I think it's critical to invest in these companies, because otherwise we have no control at all, and no voice in anything that they are doing.

Hmm, the minimum investment in their fund is $1,000 with subsequent investments at $250. Not as bad as many of the other funds that I've looked at, but still, who among the people on the street can pull $1,000 out of their savings account to put into ANY investment.

I digress...

Our Core Principle. “The social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits.” [Milton Friedman Winner of the 1976 Nobel Prize in Economics]

I think there is a Supreme Court case that put this into our legal framework as well. Ok, fine. So our businesses are supposed to earn the profits and grow the economy. And then what? What do the owners do with their money? Are they donating to causes that need money? I keep hearing people talking in support of free enterprise and against government funding to social programs that if the need is really there, the money will be there because good people will donate. I'm calling that total BS. I get calls every single day from charities that are begging for money to stay in operation. There are dozens of charities within 5 miles of where I live that are struggling. The Portland Rescue Mission chairity is having to scale back operations because the money is not there. So where are the owners of Exxon-Mobil or Haliburton? They're moving their corporate headquarters overseas so they DON'T HAVE TO PAY TAXES, and hoarding their money in off-shore bank accounts where the interest isn't taxed either. They don't give a damn about the charities that our people need, sometimes to survive.

What actions will the Fund take?


  • Engaging corporate managements.

  • Using the media.

  • Marshalling support for Fund activism.



There's more, but why bother. They are doing the same thing that people have done since the beginning, advocating for their ideological position and for an increase in their financial return. Yeah, so? Are they saying that they should be able to do this while those of us in the Social Responsibile Investment community do not? To bad they don't have any means of making that threat a reality. What are they going to do, encourage companies to take their stocks off the market? Or refuse any and all shareholder resolutions? Clamp down on media outlets that advertise SRI funds? They can't. Because if they do these things, they're preventing themselves from continuing their own activities.

However, here is something I somewhat agree with them on:

We believe that social activist investors and anti-business activists threaten shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise.

I'm not against business. I fully support the capitalist system of economics. Capitalism is a method of the distribution of goods and services that uses capital and the collection of capital in order to get things done. There's nothing wrong with that until someone comes along and tries to say that because they have lots of money, their voice should be heard above those that don't have the same amount of money in the political arena. So, those shareholders who hold a majority in the stock of a company are right now pushing these business managers and CEO's to ignore their own best interest and pollute the air, water and airwaves with poison. And if the "social responsibility" of a company is to make money, then they most certainly are threatening shareholder value and the American system of free enterprise", because they are pissing off the people who work for these companies beyond the breaking point.

There should be a wall between Wall Street and the State that is as high as the wall between Church and State.

I don't want to move towards Socialism or Communism. I like the fact that if I have an idea for a business, I have the opportunity start a business and try and sell that product or service in the market. What I don't like is that unless I have the money to pay for the advertising needed to get the word out about my product or service, big corporations can quickly come out with similar or even the same product or service and steal my thunder. And they can pay the dividends that go into the pockets of their shareholders that support certain candidates for political office who will write and pass laws that ALLOW THESE COMPANIES TO GET AWAY WITH IT!

So this is quite the post. Here's the bottom line:

If it is the responsibility of a business to make money for their shareholders, it is the responsibility of the public to become those shareholders so we can make sure that the profits being made are going towards causes that we support. And that's what I'm preaching. Let the companies make all the money they want until we can get the laws changed. Just make sure that you are gaining a benefit from that money in the big picture. If you want your air and water polluted, then let them continue to do business like they have been. If you want to make a change, it's up to us. We have the power to turn things around in this country, and in this economy. And nobody can take that power away without taking away their own power.

Monday, March 06, 2006

Dear National Space Society,

I have been a member of the NSS for several years, but this year I just can't afford it. I received my 'final reminder' letter today, and I responded by email. Here is what I sent to them:

Dear National Space Society,

I just received my last reminder letter from Buzz Aldrin, and I wanted to reply on why I am not renewing my membership. To be completely candid, I just don't have the money. I can't afford $60, I can't afford $30, I can't afford $5. I am starting to break into tears whenever I get another donation request through the mail or over the phone, because every single charity that I am aware of deserves all the money that they are asking for to fund your educational programs, their medical research and whatever else a charity might be asking for.

Please tell Mr. Aldrin that is why I have not renewed my membership in the NSS. I fully support what you are doing and what you stand for. You have done nothing wrong.

Thank you for everything that you do in support of a positive future for our children. Please don't give up, and don't quit. Neither will I.

---

Here is what I decided not to send to them:

I blame George Bush for this disaster, along with all the others that he has had happen on his watch. The Conservative fools in power are not Republicans, and they are destroying the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt and Dwight Eisenhower, while at the same time working hard to destroy the Democratic Party of Thomas Jefferson and John Kennedy. These destroyers are constantly telling people that the market will provide for people and the charities that people depend on, and that the rich people will step forward and make the donations that are necessary. This is a flat out lie, and they know it is a lie, and they do not care.

I am spending every waking moment, every dime I have and every breath in my body trying to rid this country of these people and their ideology.

---

One last thought on this. I do believe the market will provide for the needs of our charities and our people. It will be able to do that when we have taken it back from the people who have stolen it from us.

Thursday, March 02, 2006

Donation Certificates

Problem: Our 501(c)3 organizations, especially progressives ones, are constantly lacking in operating funds, and are constantly begging for money to keep afloat and fund their initiatives.

Problem: Our national savings rate is the lowest it has been since the Great Depression. People are pulling money out of their equity, taking out unsecured loans, living on credit cards and not preparing for the future. At the same time, Social Security is under attack by people who want to shut the entire system down by privatizing it. SSI should not be the only resource that people count on to pay for retirement at any time, and especially when the conservatives are trying to destroy it.

Problem: The American People no longer own our own country. From the ports being sold to Dubai to the massive list of companies on economyincrisis.org, we are watching the ownership of our infrastructure being transfered to private corporations that are unaccountable to the people.

Solution to all three of these problems:

I want to create an investment method where people put money into a savings program by buying bonds or what I call "Donation Certificates". The money would go into an account that earns interest in a local bank, and each person that buys a certificate increases the money in that account. Each month when the bank pays the interest on that account, the returned interest is split in half, with half going back into the account and the other half going to the charity. The more people that buy the certificates, the more money we will have to earn interest on.

Now, I call these bonds because they are redeemable. If someone purchases a $100 certificate, they would be able to come back after 5 or 10 years and cash it in. The value of the certificate would increase based on half the interest rate the account earns. It wouldn't be as much as if they had put the money into an account by themselves without making any donations with it, but with so many organizations to donate to, it would be good for people to know that their money is going to help provide for the charities they care about.

I need help looking at the numbers and figureing out how to create this kind of funding stream. I'm thinking a 501(c)3, but the accounts would be making a profit, selling certificates, etc. So a for-profit company might be a better choice. But I don't know enough about the law to know how to do this.

If you know anyone who might be able to help me create this, please let me know. I want to turn charity fundraising on its head with a brand new idea that encourages people to save and puts people into the mindset that they are owners of the future of their society.

Chad Lupkes
chadlupkes@gmail.com

Wednesday, March 01, 2006

Copyrights are giving me a headache

This is something I just posted on Wikipedia, and I wanted to post it here as well:

I thought the fundamental purpose of a copyright was to prevent other individuals from making a profit on content that I create. If I want to copy something from a website to Wikipedia, like information about the CEO's and Board of Directors of publically owned corporations, I'm not making any money on it, Wikipedia is not making any money on it, and the company I'm getting the information from is not losing any money from it. If people don't want any information about you on the web, don't become a member of the board of directors of a public company, or a politician, or an artist, or whatever. And to relate this to Google, if their indexer can find information and not get in trouble for copying it into their search results, why would Wikipedia get in trouble for grabbing the information and creating links to it and from it to other articles on the site? We're putting up walls and protections to protect things that have no financial value, but have tremendous civil and social value if they are shared information. What's the point?!