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?
Friday, March 31, 2006
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!
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.
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
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?!
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?!
Thursday, February 09, 2006
Social Security: The Poison Pill
President Bush's 2007 budget proposal includes funding for a Social Security privatization plan.
"His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years. ... Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion." - Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/
Something else I found interesting:
"Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.
"Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would."
What this doesn't say is that wages are something that can be kept under control by the corporate libertarians, while inflation is out of their control. And the minimum wage is something the Conservatives want to eliminate so they can pay people even lower wages. And don't forget that the coming financial situation thanks to $8 Trillion in deficits will raise inflation, thereby giving higher-paid people a steady increase in benefits while leaving our grandparents and the poor out on the street. Maybe a better plan would be to tie lower-wage benefits to the cost of living, while tying higher-wage benefits to the minimum wage. That would be an incentive for future administrations to raise the minimum wage.
The Conservatives want that $712 Billion for Wall Street. And this plan in the budget bill is their poison pill for the American people. So it's time to introduce our own poison pill.
I'm making a pledge right now that every dollar that I can spare will be going towards private investment into stocks that pay a high dividend, like Haliburton and GM. Half of those dividend checks that I get back will be going to progressive think tanks like the Center for American Progress or the Institute for Washington's Future. The other half of those dividends will be reinvested back into the stocks it came from, giving me a growing collection of stocks. This is basically what they've been doing for 30+ years in support of the Heritage Foundation and 80 other thinktanks that push their schemes to destroy this country.
So, for example, if I invest in WalMart stock, half of the dividend will go to Wake Up Walmart. If I purchase GM or Ford, half will be going to the United Auto Workers. If I buy ExxonMobil, half will be going to the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. If I buy News Corp, half of the dividend will be going to Media Matters for America.
That's my poison pill that I'm shoving down the throat of the corporate libertarians. The more money they are able to steal from public money to go into private hands, the bigger the stock dividends will be, and the more money I'll be able to make available to build a strong progressive infrastructure. And I invite everyone who can afford $10 per month to join me.
It's time to fight back, with every tool at our disposal. They have designed the global financial system to make them money. It's time we took some of that money back and put it towards a positive future.
"His plan would let people set up private accounts starting in 2010 and would divert more than $700 billion of Social Security tax revenues to pay for them over the first seven years. ... Unlike Bush's generalized privatization talk of last year, we're now talking detailed numbers. On page 321 of the budget proposal, you see the privatization costs: $24.182 billion in fiscal 2010, $57.429 billion in fiscal 2011 and another $630.533 billion for the five years after that, for a seven-year total of $712.144 billion." - Newsweek
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11235990/site/newsweek/
Something else I found interesting:
"Bush also wants to change the way Social Security benefits are calculated for most people by adopting so-called progressive indexing. Lower-income people would continue to have their Social Security benefits tied to wages, but the benefits paid to higher-paid people would be tied to inflation.
"Wages have typically risen 1.1 percent a year more than inflation, so over time, that disparity would give lower-paid and higher-paid people essentially the same benefit. However, higher-paid workers would be paying substantially more into the system than lower-paid people would."
What this doesn't say is that wages are something that can be kept under control by the corporate libertarians, while inflation is out of their control. And the minimum wage is something the Conservatives want to eliminate so they can pay people even lower wages. And don't forget that the coming financial situation thanks to $8 Trillion in deficits will raise inflation, thereby giving higher-paid people a steady increase in benefits while leaving our grandparents and the poor out on the street. Maybe a better plan would be to tie lower-wage benefits to the cost of living, while tying higher-wage benefits to the minimum wage. That would be an incentive for future administrations to raise the minimum wage.
The Conservatives want that $712 Billion for Wall Street. And this plan in the budget bill is their poison pill for the American people. So it's time to introduce our own poison pill.
I'm making a pledge right now that every dollar that I can spare will be going towards private investment into stocks that pay a high dividend, like Haliburton and GM. Half of those dividend checks that I get back will be going to progressive think tanks like the Center for American Progress or the Institute for Washington's Future. The other half of those dividends will be reinvested back into the stocks it came from, giving me a growing collection of stocks. This is basically what they've been doing for 30+ years in support of the Heritage Foundation and 80 other thinktanks that push their schemes to destroy this country.
So, for example, if I invest in WalMart stock, half of the dividend will go to Wake Up Walmart. If I purchase GM or Ford, half will be going to the United Auto Workers. If I buy ExxonMobil, half will be going to the Sierra Club or Greenpeace. If I buy News Corp, half of the dividend will be going to Media Matters for America.
That's my poison pill that I'm shoving down the throat of the corporate libertarians. The more money they are able to steal from public money to go into private hands, the bigger the stock dividends will be, and the more money I'll be able to make available to build a strong progressive infrastructure. And I invite everyone who can afford $10 per month to join me.
It's time to fight back, with every tool at our disposal. They have designed the global financial system to make them money. It's time we took some of that money back and put it towards a positive future.
Sunday, January 15, 2006
How to vote Blue on Walt Disney Stocks
Hi everyone,
It's been a while since I posted a recommendation, but I just finished voting my Disney shares. You can read my recommendations on Democracy for Wall Street.
I'm hearing that Corporations want to know who their shareholders are so they can head shareholder resolutions off before they really get started. Well, everyone in Washington State knows who I am, so if they have any questions, they can call me.
Chad
It's been a while since I posted a recommendation, but I just finished voting my Disney shares. You can read my recommendations on Democracy for Wall Street.
I'm hearing that Corporations want to know who their shareholders are so they can head shareholder resolutions off before they really get started. Well, everyone in Washington State knows who I am, so if they have any questions, they can call me.
Chad
Tuesday, January 03, 2006
NY Times Article of note
December 9, 2005
Do Companies Need a Little Democracy?
By FLOYD NORRIS
FOUR years after Enron's bankruptcy shocked investors - and revealed that there was almost nothing there once the lies were stripped away - reforms have changed many things in corporate America.
Corporate directors are newly empowered, and in many cases a lot better paid than they were in the old days. Auditors are more closely regulated, but in ways that have improved their income significantly. Wall Street's way of doing stock research has been turned around. Corporate officials must now personally certify their companies' financial results and the quality of the internal controls that assure accuracy. Mutual funds, with more independent directors, may seek to avoid paying too much to the managers who run and market the funds.
But one change that seemed likely - an increase in shareholder power - has not been realized.
Shareholders legally own companies, but in practice they have little influence. Elections of directors are seldom contested. The ballots companies send out allow shareholders to withhold votes from directors, but do not provide alternatives. If 99 percent of shareholders vote against a director, but he votes for himself, he will win.
It is possible to mount a proxy battle but that involves a lot of expense, because someone running against the incumbents cannot even get on their ballot. Insurgents must send out their own ballots, as well as campaign literature, and pay for it. Few even try.
William H. Donaldson, when he was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, promised to change that. The rule the S.E.C. proposed was a mild one: it would have allowed institutional investors in some cases to put forth, on the company's ballot, a so-called short slate of directors that, if successful, would control only a minority of seats on the board. But even that infuriated corporate America, and after intense lobbying Mr. Donaldson did not pursue the plan. There is no indication that his successor, Christopher Cox, plans action in that area.
Some doubt the wisdom of shareholder power. Iman Anabtawi, an acting professor of law at U.C.L.A., argues that differing groups of shareholders can have divergent and conflicting interests, and that board power is needed to mediate. Her point is reinforced by efforts of hedge fund managers to influence companies in ways aimed more at short-term stock performance than long-term value creation.
But defenders of the status quo should ask whether any additional limits on the power of self-perpetuating boards are needed.
If so, they might be wise to act now, rather than after abuses create another stampede for change.
An interesting suggestion comes from Leo E. Strine Jr., a Delaware vice chancellor and as such a judge who can decide the outcome of corporate battles. In a coming issue of The Harvard Law Review, he sets forth a proposal, which he is careful not to endorse, that could thread a middle line between reformers and traditionalists.
It suggests changes in state laws to allow contested elections of director - outside of the takeover context - every three years. If insurgents, who could appear on the ballots sent out by management, received 35 percent of the votes, they could get some of their expenses reimbursed. And, of course, they might win.
In return for getting real authority, shareholders would no longer be able to propose nonbinding resolutions that now appear at annual meetings every year.
The risk now is that reforms have freed boards from domination by chief executives without creating any other controls, other than the courts, over directors. A limited dose of democracy might help to ensure we are not entering the era of the imperial board of directors.
Do Companies Need a Little Democracy?
By FLOYD NORRIS
FOUR years after Enron's bankruptcy shocked investors - and revealed that there was almost nothing there once the lies were stripped away - reforms have changed many things in corporate America.
Corporate directors are newly empowered, and in many cases a lot better paid than they were in the old days. Auditors are more closely regulated, but in ways that have improved their income significantly. Wall Street's way of doing stock research has been turned around. Corporate officials must now personally certify their companies' financial results and the quality of the internal controls that assure accuracy. Mutual funds, with more independent directors, may seek to avoid paying too much to the managers who run and market the funds.
But one change that seemed likely - an increase in shareholder power - has not been realized.
Shareholders legally own companies, but in practice they have little influence. Elections of directors are seldom contested. The ballots companies send out allow shareholders to withhold votes from directors, but do not provide alternatives. If 99 percent of shareholders vote against a director, but he votes for himself, he will win.
It is possible to mount a proxy battle but that involves a lot of expense, because someone running against the incumbents cannot even get on their ballot. Insurgents must send out their own ballots, as well as campaign literature, and pay for it. Few even try.
William H. Donaldson, when he was chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, promised to change that. The rule the S.E.C. proposed was a mild one: it would have allowed institutional investors in some cases to put forth, on the company's ballot, a so-called short slate of directors that, if successful, would control only a minority of seats on the board. But even that infuriated corporate America, and after intense lobbying Mr. Donaldson did not pursue the plan. There is no indication that his successor, Christopher Cox, plans action in that area.
Some doubt the wisdom of shareholder power. Iman Anabtawi, an acting professor of law at U.C.L.A., argues that differing groups of shareholders can have divergent and conflicting interests, and that board power is needed to mediate. Her point is reinforced by efforts of hedge fund managers to influence companies in ways aimed more at short-term stock performance than long-term value creation.
But defenders of the status quo should ask whether any additional limits on the power of self-perpetuating boards are needed.
If so, they might be wise to act now, rather than after abuses create another stampede for change.
An interesting suggestion comes from Leo E. Strine Jr., a Delaware vice chancellor and as such a judge who can decide the outcome of corporate battles. In a coming issue of The Harvard Law Review, he sets forth a proposal, which he is careful not to endorse, that could thread a middle line between reformers and traditionalists.
It suggests changes in state laws to allow contested elections of director - outside of the takeover context - every three years. If insurgents, who could appear on the ballots sent out by management, received 35 percent of the votes, they could get some of their expenses reimbursed. And, of course, they might win.
In return for getting real authority, shareholders would no longer be able to propose nonbinding resolutions that now appear at annual meetings every year.
The risk now is that reforms have freed boards from domination by chief executives without creating any other controls, other than the courts, over directors. A limited dose of democracy might help to ensure we are not entering the era of the imperial board of directors.
Thursday, November 17, 2005
Responsible Wealth Press Release
Boston Wal-Mart shareholders today filed a resolution with the company requesting public disclosure of who gets Wal-Mart stock options, broken down by race and gender. In each of the last three years, between 4.8% and 13% of all Wal-Mart stock options went to the top five officers, who make up 0.0003 percent of the company's employees. All five are white men.
The filing of the resolution was timed to coincide with a national Wal-Mart Week.
In addition to Northstar Asset Management clients and other members of Responsible Wealth, the resolution was filed by Martha Burk, the director of the National Council of Women¹s Organizations¹ Corporate Accountability Project. Dr. Burk is best known for leading the effort to open the Augusta National Golf Club to women.
A second-generation Wal-Mart shareholder, Dr. Burk presented a similar resolution at last April¹s annual meeting. She said today, "I am still concerned that the wealth creation opportunities afforded by the company are disproportionately going to white men. The company needs to disclose the data."
Last year's resolution won 15% of the vote, an unusually high number given how much of the stock is owned by Walton family members and Wal-Mart's top management.
Margaret Covert, Shareholder Action Coordinator of NorthStar Asset Management, said, "Wal-Mart¹s emphasis on 'Always Low Prices' comes at a cost to employees working for always low wages. The tremendous profits that have enriched the Walton family and other major shareholders, if shared more broadly with all Wal-Mart workers, could mean health coverage and homeownership for those now lacking them."
Added Scott Klinger, co-director of Responsible Wealth, "In the last few weeks Wal-Mart has committed to greater transparency. This resolution is an invitation to uphold that commitment. Shareholders deserve to know which employees are being rewarded with stock options, and whether their company is contributing to the growing U.S. racial wealth divide."
A court decision is expected in coming months on Wal-Mart's appeal of the formation of a class for the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in history, filed by current and former women employees.
The text of the resolution can be seen online at:
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/shareholder/2006/WalMart.html
The filing of the resolution was timed to coincide with a national Wal-Mart Week.
In addition to Northstar Asset Management clients and other members of Responsible Wealth, the resolution was filed by Martha Burk, the director of the National Council of Women¹s Organizations¹ Corporate Accountability Project. Dr. Burk is best known for leading the effort to open the Augusta National Golf Club to women.
A second-generation Wal-Mart shareholder, Dr. Burk presented a similar resolution at last April¹s annual meeting. She said today, "I am still concerned that the wealth creation opportunities afforded by the company are disproportionately going to white men. The company needs to disclose the data."
Last year's resolution won 15% of the vote, an unusually high number given how much of the stock is owned by Walton family members and Wal-Mart's top management.
Margaret Covert, Shareholder Action Coordinator of NorthStar Asset Management, said, "Wal-Mart¹s emphasis on 'Always Low Prices' comes at a cost to employees working for always low wages. The tremendous profits that have enriched the Walton family and other major shareholders, if shared more broadly with all Wal-Mart workers, could mean health coverage and homeownership for those now lacking them."
Added Scott Klinger, co-director of Responsible Wealth, "In the last few weeks Wal-Mart has committed to greater transparency. This resolution is an invitation to uphold that commitment. Shareholders deserve to know which employees are being rewarded with stock options, and whether their company is contributing to the growing U.S. racial wealth divide."
A court decision is expected in coming months on Wal-Mart's appeal of the formation of a class for the largest gender discrimination lawsuit in history, filed by current and former women employees.
The text of the resolution can be seen online at:
http://www.responsiblewealth.org/shareholder/2006/WalMart.html
Monday, November 14, 2005
Just posted on Since Sliced Bread
I just posted this on Since Sliced Bread, a project of the SEIU:
http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/idea/8980
Right now companies are considered the property of the shareholders. We need to change the dynamic by pushing the idea of stakeholders. Everyone that works for a company is a stakeholder. Everyone that does business with a company is a stakeholder. Everyone that lives around the company is a stakeholder. Democracy is the idea that our voices and opinions matter. We have groups focused on Democracy for America. We need Democracy for Wall Street.
Ideas that could come from this idea: The concept of one person one vote for shareholder resolutions and board elections; Employee ownership of companies; Requiring companies building in an area to have a certain percentage of shares owned by people living in that area; etc.
Why do labor unions focus so much attention on fighting against the owners of the corporations. I'd rather see them TAKE OWNERSHIP of the corporation and make the Board of Directors do the right thing for their employees, the community and the environment.
http://www.sinceslicedbread.com/idea/8980
Right now companies are considered the property of the shareholders. We need to change the dynamic by pushing the idea of stakeholders. Everyone that works for a company is a stakeholder. Everyone that does business with a company is a stakeholder. Everyone that lives around the company is a stakeholder. Democracy is the idea that our voices and opinions matter. We have groups focused on Democracy for America. We need Democracy for Wall Street.
Ideas that could come from this idea: The concept of one person one vote for shareholder resolutions and board elections; Employee ownership of companies; Requiring companies building in an area to have a certain percentage of shares owned by people living in that area; etc.
Why do labor unions focus so much attention on fighting against the owners of the corporations. I'd rather see them TAKE OWNERSHIP of the corporation and make the Board of Directors do the right thing for their employees, the community and the environment.
Thursday, October 06, 2005
Press Release with good news
US Renewables Group Closes Initial $80 Million to Fund Renewable Energy Projects
Company Both Owns and Operates Renewable Energy Assets
LOS ANGELES, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 10/05/2005 -- US Renewables Group ("USRG"), a company organized to acquire, develop and operate renewable energy and clean fuel assets, today announced an initial close of $80 million as part of its plan to raise a total of $250 million in financing. Initial investors include Rustic Canyon Partners and several other investors. Founded in 2003 to invest in renewable energy operating assets, USRG focuses on stationary power generation (landfill methane, waste-to-gas, biomass and geothermal) and clean fuels (biodiesel, ethanol and coal-to-liquid).
Several factors have converged to dramatically improve the outlook for the renewable energy market -- the adoption of renewable energy portfolio standards, now effective in 21 states; the environmental challenges posed by the continued use of non-renewable resources; and rising fuel prices. According to Global Energy Decisions, a provider of market data to the energy industry, renewable power and clean fuels are two of the fastest-growing segments in the US energy industry, with compounded annual growth rates of 10-20 percent per year.
USRG addresses an opportunity in the renewable energy market that neither traditional private equity nor venture capital investors currently address. Renewable energy financings require a strong understanding of project equity, senior and subordinated debt structures, regulatory compliance, fuel supply and power purchase agreements. Because of its unique structure and management team, USRG has the necessary skills to successfully operate renewable energy assets in a cost effective manner.
"In an increasingly volatile energy market, USRG believes that owning and operating renewable energy assets is an excellent hedge against rising oil and natural gas prices. USRG offers investors a method to obtain above-average current income and capital appreciation," said Jim McDermott, the CEO of USRG. "No one questions the environmental benefits of renewable energy as an alternative source of power and fuel. Yet when you also consider the growth fundamentals and lack of legitimate pure play renewables companies, it becomes clear why USRG is such a compelling investment opportunity."
Consistent with the company's stated goal to become the US' leading Independent Renewable Energy Company ("IREC"), USRG owns and operates two landfill methane facilities in California (Los Angeles) and is building another facility in Texas (San Antonio). In addition, USRG is negotiating to acquire an additional 100 MWs of biomass power and to acquire more than 300 million gallons per year of ethanol capacity.
"USRG has gained a reputation as an organization that understands the intricacies of the renewable energy market," said Michael T. Eckhart, President of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). "Companies like USRG, that can provide capital while managing the risks that are particular to renewable energy projects, are filling a very important role in our sector."
"Renewable and efficient energy is a growing and increasingly attractive investment opportunity, and USRG's innovative approach of focusing on the operation of renewable energy assets creates an ideal fit for us," said Tom Unterman, Managing Partner at Rustic Canyon Partners.
About US Renewables Group
US Renewables Group, LLC ("USRG") is an investment company capitalizing on the fastest-growing segments of the $650B energy marketplace. USRG acquires, develops and operates renewable stationary power generation and clean fuel assets primarily in North America. USRG operates nationally from headquarters in Los Angeles and offices in New York. For more information, please visit the company Web site at www.usregroup.com.
###
Let's try and prevent these guys from being bought out by the Mega-Corps.
Company Both Owns and Operates Renewable Energy Assets
LOS ANGELES, CA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 10/05/2005 -- US Renewables Group ("USRG"), a company organized to acquire, develop and operate renewable energy and clean fuel assets, today announced an initial close of $80 million as part of its plan to raise a total of $250 million in financing. Initial investors include Rustic Canyon Partners and several other investors. Founded in 2003 to invest in renewable energy operating assets, USRG focuses on stationary power generation (landfill methane, waste-to-gas, biomass and geothermal) and clean fuels (biodiesel, ethanol and coal-to-liquid).
Several factors have converged to dramatically improve the outlook for the renewable energy market -- the adoption of renewable energy portfolio standards, now effective in 21 states; the environmental challenges posed by the continued use of non-renewable resources; and rising fuel prices. According to Global Energy Decisions, a provider of market data to the energy industry, renewable power and clean fuels are two of the fastest-growing segments in the US energy industry, with compounded annual growth rates of 10-20 percent per year.
USRG addresses an opportunity in the renewable energy market that neither traditional private equity nor venture capital investors currently address. Renewable energy financings require a strong understanding of project equity, senior and subordinated debt structures, regulatory compliance, fuel supply and power purchase agreements. Because of its unique structure and management team, USRG has the necessary skills to successfully operate renewable energy assets in a cost effective manner.
"In an increasingly volatile energy market, USRG believes that owning and operating renewable energy assets is an excellent hedge against rising oil and natural gas prices. USRG offers investors a method to obtain above-average current income and capital appreciation," said Jim McDermott, the CEO of USRG. "No one questions the environmental benefits of renewable energy as an alternative source of power and fuel. Yet when you also consider the growth fundamentals and lack of legitimate pure play renewables companies, it becomes clear why USRG is such a compelling investment opportunity."
Consistent with the company's stated goal to become the US' leading Independent Renewable Energy Company ("IREC"), USRG owns and operates two landfill methane facilities in California (Los Angeles) and is building another facility in Texas (San Antonio). In addition, USRG is negotiating to acquire an additional 100 MWs of biomass power and to acquire more than 300 million gallons per year of ethanol capacity.
"USRG has gained a reputation as an organization that understands the intricacies of the renewable energy market," said Michael T. Eckhart, President of the American Council on Renewable Energy (ACORE). "Companies like USRG, that can provide capital while managing the risks that are particular to renewable energy projects, are filling a very important role in our sector."
"Renewable and efficient energy is a growing and increasingly attractive investment opportunity, and USRG's innovative approach of focusing on the operation of renewable energy assets creates an ideal fit for us," said Tom Unterman, Managing Partner at Rustic Canyon Partners.
About US Renewables Group
US Renewables Group, LLC ("USRG") is an investment company capitalizing on the fastest-growing segments of the $650B energy marketplace. USRG acquires, develops and operates renewable stationary power generation and clean fuel assets primarily in North America. USRG operates nationally from headquarters in Los Angeles and offices in New York. For more information, please visit the company Web site at www.usregroup.com.
###
Let's try and prevent these guys from being bought out by the Mega-Corps.
Sunday, July 03, 2005
Montana Energy Debacle
Re: David Sirota's article
I find it disturbing that one of the topics on this blog entry on Working for Change is "Capitalist Pigs". The Progressive Movement needs to understand that they can't be Socialist and be serious contenders in our political system. Our economic system is capitalist, take it or leave it. The only way we're going to take back this country in the long term is by taking back the economy, and I'm not talking about a change in economic system. I'm talking about the people who want change in their country taking control of the companies that are destroying it. Public Ownership does not necessarily entail government ownership, especially since the government is almost as much of a problem as the corporations, thanks to current campaign finance regulations giving the advantage to the most valuable player from the onset.
I very much agree with David's comments, but it looks from the articles that Northwest Corp. is going to recommend against their shareholders approving the purchase. If they do, the citizens of Montana have another option. Beat them at their own game.
They are offering NWEC 1.17 Billion dollars. The NWEC stock is currently worth $31.87. That means that with this capital they could purchase 53 Million shares, or 15% of the company.
Progressives need to understand that they don't have to be anti-capitalist. They need to stop letting the rich people own the field and buy off the referees. We need to take control of our own economy and make it work for us. The only way of doing that is by taking control of the assets.
Chad Lupkes
I find it disturbing that one of the topics on this blog entry on Working for Change is "Capitalist Pigs". The Progressive Movement needs to understand that they can't be Socialist and be serious contenders in our political system. Our economic system is capitalist, take it or leave it. The only way we're going to take back this country in the long term is by taking back the economy, and I'm not talking about a change in economic system. I'm talking about the people who want change in their country taking control of the companies that are destroying it. Public Ownership does not necessarily entail government ownership, especially since the government is almost as much of a problem as the corporations, thanks to current campaign finance regulations giving the advantage to the most valuable player from the onset.
I very much agree with David's comments, but it looks from the articles that Northwest Corp. is going to recommend against their shareholders approving the purchase. If they do, the citizens of Montana have another option. Beat them at their own game.
They are offering NWEC 1.17 Billion dollars. The NWEC stock is currently worth $31.87. That means that with this capital they could purchase 53 Million shares, or 15% of the company.
Progressives need to understand that they don't have to be anti-capitalist. They need to stop letting the rich people own the field and buy off the referees. We need to take control of our own economy and make it work for us. The only way of doing that is by taking control of the assets.
Chad Lupkes
Tuesday, June 21, 2005
The Seattle Monorail
I've been looking at the Seattle Monorail recently. The board just came to contract agreements with Cascadia Monorail Company, LLC (http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/), and we're go for the start of construction. That's wonderful!
I've always wondered why the Seattle city Council didn't take on the management of the project instead of agreeing to a DBOM contract. That's Design, Build, Operate & Maintain. This model has evidently been used in other locations, and it's basically privatizing it as much as possible, while still keeping citizen oversight. What happens to the Monorail Board once the Green Line is complete is almost an open question, although to hear them tell it they're already starting to work on the next part of the project.
Now let's look at the Company itself. Cascadia Monorail Company, LLC, is a collaboration among a whole bunch of firms. Let's list them, and determine what information we can about them. Are they Public Firms? If so, we can get a piece of the action. If they're privately owned, who owns them? I can't answer all of these questions immediately, but it will be an interesting project. Much of this information is available on the Cascadia website.
Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
Fluor Corporation, the parent company of Fluor Enterprises, Inc., provides services on a global basis in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance and project management. The company has worked on a number of urban transit projects including the HSL South Transportation System in The Netherlands (a trans-European rail network), Railtrack’s East Coast Main Line in Great Britain and the Conway Bypass Project in South Carolina. Fluor Corporation, one of the world's largest, publicly owned engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services organizations, is a Fortune 500 company with revenues of $10 billion in fiscal year 2002. Consistently rated as one of the world's safest contractors, Fluor's primary objective is to develop, execute, and maintain capital projects on schedule, within budget, and with operational excellence. For more information, visit www.fluor.com.
Fluor Corporation is a public company (NYSE: FLR), and they actually advertise on their Investors page that we can invest in the company at ShareBuilder. That's really cool, and rare. They're based in Dallas, Ft. Worth Texas. According to opensecrets.org, their federal PAC donated $229,649 to federal candidates, 17% to Democrats, 83% to Republicans. We need to get their attention about Jay Inslee's Apollo Project. If they want major construction contracts, alternative energy would get them a lot more money than the old and dying oil industry.
Hitachi Ltd.
Hitachi, Ltd. is a leading global technology company, with approximately 320,000 employees worldwide. Fiscal 2001consolidated sales totaled $60.1 billion. The company offers a wide range of systems, products and services in market sectors, including urban transit systems. With nearly four decades of experience, Hitachi provides advanced urban transportation solutions. Hitachi’s design technology has evolved over the past 38 years into a highly reliable and predictable mode of urban mass transit including the Tokyo Monorail, Kitakyushu Monorail, Osaka Monorail, Tama Monorail, and the Okinawa Monorail. Hitachi purchased a licensing agreement from Alweg for the production of Alweg-based designs in Japan during the 1962 World’s Fair. Hitachi has been improving upon those designs for the past 38 years, providing unsurpassed safety and reliability. For more information, visit www.hitachi-rail.com/products/monorail/.
Mitsui USA
The parent company of Mitsui USA is Mitsui & Co Ltd, (NASDAQ: MITSY) based in Japan. Mitsui & Co., U.S.A., Inc., a leading international trading house with an extensive global network, has over 100 consolidated subsidiaries and joint ventures across the U.S. The company's total trading transactions amounted to $7.5 billion for the year ended March 31, 2002. In the 2002 world’s largest corporations lists, its parent company, Mitsui & Co., Ltd., is ranked 6th in “The International 500” by Forbes magazine and 13th in “The Global 500” by Fortune magazine. For more information, visit www.mitsui.com.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
HDR is a nationally recognized employee-owned architectural, engineering consulting firm. Established in 1917, the company employs over 3,200 professionals across the U.S. and abroad, including architects, engineers, consultants, scientists, planners and construction managers, in over 85 locations worldwide, to provide solutions beyond the scope of traditional A/E/C firms. Engineering News-Record consistently ranks HDR as one of the “Top 20” transportation engineering firms. The company opened its first Pacific Northwest office in Seattle in 1975 and now employs more than 350 people in seven Northwest offices in Bellevue, Pasco and Port Orchard, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Boise, Idaho; Missoula, Montana; and Anchorage, Alaska. For more information, visit www.hdrinc.com.
Howard S. Wright Construction Co.
Howard S. Wright Construction Co., founded in 1885, provides professional construction services in the areas of commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. Since the company started in the state of Washington, it has performed work in a majority of the Western states including Alaska and Hawaii. Now a symbol of Seattle, the Space Needle was originally built by Howard S. Wright Construction Co. as the focal point for the 1962 World's Fair. The foundation of the Space Needle consists of 5,850 tons of concrete and steel, resting on a 30-foot deep foundation. The company was also the general contractor for the World’s Fair Monorail and the Seattle Art Museum. For more information, visit www.howardswright.com.
Hoffman Construction Company
Hoffman Construction Company was founded in 1922 in Portland, Oregon as a family-owned general contractor, building apartments, schools and factories. Based in Portland, with offices in Seattle, Hoffman is a leader in specialized construction for transportation facilities such as station and maintenance facilities understanding the importance of maintaining traffic during construction; environmental requirements particularly those that relate to noise and vibration, and utility relocation requirements in the Seattle area. Hoffman has developed detailed procedures to ensure the safety of the traveling public during construction. Hoffman was the general contractor for some of Seattle’s more notable projects such as the Experience Music Project, the new Seattle Library and City Hall. For more information, visit http://www.hoffmancorp.com.
Atkinson Construction
RCI Construction Group
RCI Construction Group was founded in 1978 and is based in Sumner, Washington. RCI specializes in technically difficult projects including deep shaft and pipeline construction, steep slope outfall, and penstock installation. Coupled with comprehensive experience in pier construction, commercial, industrial and residential planned community development, and structural concrete capabilities, RCI brings all aspects of infrastructure construction and rehabilitation to the utility field. By virtue of owning one of the region's largest inventories of construction equipment ranging from sophisticated microtunneling machinery to specialized trenching and pile driving equipment, RCI is able to complete each project more efficiently and cost effectively. RCI’s experience includes utility projects such as the Denny Way Elliot West Pipelines and the City of Tacoma’s Second Supply Pipeline. For more information, visit www.rci-group.com.
Concrete Technology Corporation
VANIR Construction Management
David Evans and Associates
Kleinfelder, Inc.
PanGeo
Buckland & Taylor
PB Transit and Rail Systems, Inc.
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Praha Strategies, Inc. (Patrick Kylen)
Alcatel Transport Automation, Inc.
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc.
EDAW
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum (HOK)
Wilson Ihrig & Assoc., Inc.
White Electrical
Holmes Electric
PSI
Doris Locke & Associates
Wow, quite a list! If I missed one, please let me know. It will take me a while to look at each of these companies.
What's my point in all this? I believe that the citizens of Seattle should be the owners and gain the financial benefits from the construction and operation of the monorail system. But I support the capitalist system. So that means to me that we should be owners of the companies that are getting the Billion dollar contract, so we can keep an eye on what the companies are doing and we can have a voice in the decisions they make. That's what this blog is all about.
Sources:
http://www.elevated.org/
http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/
http://www.opensecrets.org/
I've always wondered why the Seattle city Council didn't take on the management of the project instead of agreeing to a DBOM contract. That's Design, Build, Operate & Maintain. This model has evidently been used in other locations, and it's basically privatizing it as much as possible, while still keeping citizen oversight. What happens to the Monorail Board once the Green Line is complete is almost an open question, although to hear them tell it they're already starting to work on the next part of the project.
Now let's look at the Company itself. Cascadia Monorail Company, LLC, is a collaboration among a whole bunch of firms. Let's list them, and determine what information we can about them. Are they Public Firms? If so, we can get a piece of the action. If they're privately owned, who owns them? I can't answer all of these questions immediately, but it will be an interesting project. Much of this information is available on the Cascadia website.
Fluor Enterprises, Inc.
Fluor Corporation, the parent company of Fluor Enterprises, Inc., provides services on a global basis in the fields of engineering, procurement, construction, operations, maintenance and project management. The company has worked on a number of urban transit projects including the HSL South Transportation System in The Netherlands (a trans-European rail network), Railtrack’s East Coast Main Line in Great Britain and the Conway Bypass Project in South Carolina. Fluor Corporation, one of the world's largest, publicly owned engineering, procurement, construction, and maintenance services organizations, is a Fortune 500 company with revenues of $10 billion in fiscal year 2002. Consistently rated as one of the world's safest contractors, Fluor's primary objective is to develop, execute, and maintain capital projects on schedule, within budget, and with operational excellence. For more information, visit www.fluor.com.
Fluor Corporation is a public company (NYSE: FLR), and they actually advertise on their Investors page that we can invest in the company at ShareBuilder. That's really cool, and rare. They're based in Dallas, Ft. Worth Texas. According to opensecrets.org, their federal PAC donated $229,649 to federal candidates, 17% to Democrats, 83% to Republicans. We need to get their attention about Jay Inslee's Apollo Project. If they want major construction contracts, alternative energy would get them a lot more money than the old and dying oil industry.
Hitachi Ltd.
Hitachi, Ltd. is a leading global technology company, with approximately 320,000 employees worldwide. Fiscal 2001consolidated sales totaled $60.1 billion. The company offers a wide range of systems, products and services in market sectors, including urban transit systems. With nearly four decades of experience, Hitachi provides advanced urban transportation solutions. Hitachi’s design technology has evolved over the past 38 years into a highly reliable and predictable mode of urban mass transit including the Tokyo Monorail, Kitakyushu Monorail, Osaka Monorail, Tama Monorail, and the Okinawa Monorail. Hitachi purchased a licensing agreement from Alweg for the production of Alweg-based designs in Japan during the 1962 World’s Fair. Hitachi has been improving upon those designs for the past 38 years, providing unsurpassed safety and reliability. For more information, visit www.hitachi-rail.com/products/monorail/.
Mitsui USA
The parent company of Mitsui USA is Mitsui & Co Ltd, (NASDAQ: MITSY) based in Japan. Mitsui & Co., U.S.A., Inc., a leading international trading house with an extensive global network, has over 100 consolidated subsidiaries and joint ventures across the U.S. The company's total trading transactions amounted to $7.5 billion for the year ended March 31, 2002. In the 2002 world’s largest corporations lists, its parent company, Mitsui & Co., Ltd., is ranked 6th in “The International 500” by Forbes magazine and 13th in “The Global 500” by Fortune magazine. For more information, visit www.mitsui.com.
HDR Engineering, Inc.
HDR is a nationally recognized employee-owned architectural, engineering consulting firm. Established in 1917, the company employs over 3,200 professionals across the U.S. and abroad, including architects, engineers, consultants, scientists, planners and construction managers, in over 85 locations worldwide, to provide solutions beyond the scope of traditional A/E/C firms. Engineering News-Record consistently ranks HDR as one of the “Top 20” transportation engineering firms. The company opened its first Pacific Northwest office in Seattle in 1975 and now employs more than 350 people in seven Northwest offices in Bellevue, Pasco and Port Orchard, Washington; Portland, Oregon; Boise, Idaho; Missoula, Montana; and Anchorage, Alaska. For more information, visit www.hdrinc.com.
Howard S. Wright Construction Co.
Howard S. Wright Construction Co., founded in 1885, provides professional construction services in the areas of commercial, institutional and industrial buildings. Since the company started in the state of Washington, it has performed work in a majority of the Western states including Alaska and Hawaii. Now a symbol of Seattle, the Space Needle was originally built by Howard S. Wright Construction Co. as the focal point for the 1962 World's Fair. The foundation of the Space Needle consists of 5,850 tons of concrete and steel, resting on a 30-foot deep foundation. The company was also the general contractor for the World’s Fair Monorail and the Seattle Art Museum. For more information, visit www.howardswright.com.
Hoffman Construction Company
Hoffman Construction Company was founded in 1922 in Portland, Oregon as a family-owned general contractor, building apartments, schools and factories. Based in Portland, with offices in Seattle, Hoffman is a leader in specialized construction for transportation facilities such as station and maintenance facilities understanding the importance of maintaining traffic during construction; environmental requirements particularly those that relate to noise and vibration, and utility relocation requirements in the Seattle area. Hoffman has developed detailed procedures to ensure the safety of the traveling public during construction. Hoffman was the general contractor for some of Seattle’s more notable projects such as the Experience Music Project, the new Seattle Library and City Hall. For more information, visit http://www.hoffmancorp.com.
Atkinson Construction
RCI Construction Group
RCI Construction Group was founded in 1978 and is based in Sumner, Washington. RCI specializes in technically difficult projects including deep shaft and pipeline construction, steep slope outfall, and penstock installation. Coupled with comprehensive experience in pier construction, commercial, industrial and residential planned community development, and structural concrete capabilities, RCI brings all aspects of infrastructure construction and rehabilitation to the utility field. By virtue of owning one of the region's largest inventories of construction equipment ranging from sophisticated microtunneling machinery to specialized trenching and pile driving equipment, RCI is able to complete each project more efficiently and cost effectively. RCI’s experience includes utility projects such as the Denny Way Elliot West Pipelines and the City of Tacoma’s Second Supply Pipeline. For more information, visit www.rci-group.com.
Concrete Technology Corporation
VANIR Construction Management
David Evans and Associates
Kleinfelder, Inc.
PanGeo
Buckland & Taylor
PB Transit and Rail Systems, Inc.
H.W. Lochner, Inc.
Praha Strategies, Inc. (Patrick Kylen)
Alcatel Transport Automation, Inc.
Bear, Stearns & Co., Inc.
Berger/ABAM Engineers, Inc.
EDAW
Hellmuth, Obata & Kassabaum (HOK)
Wilson Ihrig & Assoc., Inc.
White Electrical
Holmes Electric
PSI
Doris Locke & Associates
Wow, quite a list! If I missed one, please let me know. It will take me a while to look at each of these companies.
What's my point in all this? I believe that the citizens of Seattle should be the owners and gain the financial benefits from the construction and operation of the monorail system. But I support the capitalist system. So that means to me that we should be owners of the companies that are getting the Billion dollar contract, so we can keep an eye on what the companies are doing and we can have a voice in the decisions they make. That's what this blog is all about.
Sources:
http://www.elevated.org/
http://www.cascadiamonorail.com/
http://www.opensecrets.org/
Thursday, June 16, 2005
The Ed Shultz Show
I want to start this by saying that I love the Ed Shultz Show. I listen every day, and the only thing that prevents me from calling in on a regular basis is the time slot, which is in the middle of the day. Of course, it's that time slot that allows me to listen in the first place, while I'm at work.
I went to the Seattle Town Hall Event on June 13th where the announcement was made that the shares of the show owned by Democracy Radio had been sold to a major player in the Radio business, Randy Michaels and P1 (Product First), a division of Radioactive LLC. Like the letter that Ed received and posted on his website said, the entire hall went silent. He had to tell us that it was a good thing, and many of us are still not sure.
I have a degree in business. I know how the market works, and I know you have to have money to get and keep your voice in the mix. That's all fine well and good. But here's the reality. Three people now own the shares in the Ed Shultz Show. My question is how is that Progressive? How is that Populist? Ed says all the right progressive and populist things, and he believes them. But like the vast majority of us, he can't live them. Not because he wouldn't want to, but because the system doesn't allow him to. It takes money, and he's now really excited about his ability to keep his show on the air through 2008 and help defeat whoever comes out of the Republican Party to try and keep this country going in the wrong direction. That's great, but then one of the show's new owners was on his show talking about all the money that they plan to make from advertising, and saying that it was a pure business decision that made them want to buy into the show, not because they support any of the things that Ed says. These two were part of the movement that brought Rush Limbaugh to the air, and they freely admit that. Ed says that doesn't make them Conservatives or Republicans, it makes them good businessmen.
Ed, THAT'S THE PROBLEM!
The impersonal nature of our businesses, corporations and the pure profit motive of our Capitalist economic system IS WHAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND DESTROYING OUR PLANET!
Our system of economics, thanks to Hamilton and FDR, is a capitalist system. It should be a free market that fosters fair competition of ideas, products and services. I'm not against that! I just recognize that 90% of the wealth in our country is owned and managed by 5% of our population. (Or some such rediculous statistic. It keeps changing depending on who you talk to.) How much of an influence do people making minimum wage or less have in our Congress? How much of the population am I talking about? Now, how much of an influence do people making more than $1 million per year have in our Congress? And how many people am I talking about? That's my point.
Ed, you read an email from me on the air on Wednesday. Sell stock. Sell shares in your show to the people who take a shower after work. Give us a chance to support you, and give us a chance to share in all the money that you and your two partners plan to make from advertising. Live your words, Ed. Become the progressive that we need you to be, and become not just the voice of the Progressive movement, but part of the heart and soul of the evolution of our country and the institutions that operate the machinery.
You're much better than Rush, Ed. Show us how much better you can be.
I went to the Seattle Town Hall Event on June 13th where the announcement was made that the shares of the show owned by Democracy Radio had been sold to a major player in the Radio business, Randy Michaels and P1 (Product First), a division of Radioactive LLC. Like the letter that Ed received and posted on his website said, the entire hall went silent. He had to tell us that it was a good thing, and many of us are still not sure.
I have a degree in business. I know how the market works, and I know you have to have money to get and keep your voice in the mix. That's all fine well and good. But here's the reality. Three people now own the shares in the Ed Shultz Show. My question is how is that Progressive? How is that Populist? Ed says all the right progressive and populist things, and he believes them. But like the vast majority of us, he can't live them. Not because he wouldn't want to, but because the system doesn't allow him to. It takes money, and he's now really excited about his ability to keep his show on the air through 2008 and help defeat whoever comes out of the Republican Party to try and keep this country going in the wrong direction. That's great, but then one of the show's new owners was on his show talking about all the money that they plan to make from advertising, and saying that it was a pure business decision that made them want to buy into the show, not because they support any of the things that Ed says. These two were part of the movement that brought Rush Limbaugh to the air, and they freely admit that. Ed says that doesn't make them Conservatives or Republicans, it makes them good businessmen.
Ed, THAT'S THE PROBLEM!
The impersonal nature of our businesses, corporations and the pure profit motive of our Capitalist economic system IS WHAT IS DESTROYING OUR COUNTRY AND DESTROYING OUR PLANET!
Our system of economics, thanks to Hamilton and FDR, is a capitalist system. It should be a free market that fosters fair competition of ideas, products and services. I'm not against that! I just recognize that 90% of the wealth in our country is owned and managed by 5% of our population. (Or some such rediculous statistic. It keeps changing depending on who you talk to.) How much of an influence do people making minimum wage or less have in our Congress? How much of the population am I talking about? Now, how much of an influence do people making more than $1 million per year have in our Congress? And how many people am I talking about? That's my point.
Ed, you read an email from me on the air on Wednesday. Sell stock. Sell shares in your show to the people who take a shower after work. Give us a chance to support you, and give us a chance to share in all the money that you and your two partners plan to make from advertising. Live your words, Ed. Become the progressive that we need you to be, and become not just the voice of the Progressive movement, but part of the heart and soul of the evolution of our country and the institutions that operate the machinery.
You're much better than Rush, Ed. Show us how much better you can be.
Wednesday, June 15, 2005
Welcome to Democracy for Wall Street
Are we consumers, or investors?
If we are stakeholders, shouldn't we be shareholders?
The Democratic Party is Pro-Capitalism, but Anti-Elitism. If the progressive grassroots want to take back the White House, the US Congress and our local governments, we have to start by taking back Wall Street. We don't need lawsuits, we need porfolios!
You're all asking what we can do about the Conservative Movement. The distribution of capital must be balanced. FDR started on the right path with Social Security and the SEC, but nobody caught on to what really needed to happen. Question: what is the most powerful statement that you can give an elected representative in a letter or interview? "I am a voter in your district, and whether I support you or not depends on how you deal with my issues." So, we need to make another statement just as powerful. "I am a shareholder in your company, and whether I support your bid for reelection to the Board of Directors depends on how you deal with my issues." Howard Dean started Democracy for America. We need Democracy for Wall Street.
The Board of Directors for every company in the country is who is making these decisions. If we buy their stocks, we can vote the Board of Directors out of office! Everyone on the Liberal side is running away from the stock market, and the Conservatives are laughing all the way to the board room. We need a Union centered campaign to get these SOB's off the Boards. If everyone in a union could pitch in $100, we'd have enough to buy enough stock to take over the company those union members are working for. It has to be a coordinated effort, and it must begin now.
Progressive means people against Big Money, but we have to fight fire with fire. BUY THEIR STOCK, VOTE THEM OUT!
This blog will be a place for us to talk about taking back this country, one share of stock at a time.
If we are stakeholders, shouldn't we be shareholders?
The Democratic Party is Pro-Capitalism, but Anti-Elitism. If the progressive grassroots want to take back the White House, the US Congress and our local governments, we have to start by taking back Wall Street. We don't need lawsuits, we need porfolios!
You're all asking what we can do about the Conservative Movement. The distribution of capital must be balanced. FDR started on the right path with Social Security and the SEC, but nobody caught on to what really needed to happen. Question: what is the most powerful statement that you can give an elected representative in a letter or interview? "I am a voter in your district, and whether I support you or not depends on how you deal with my issues." So, we need to make another statement just as powerful. "I am a shareholder in your company, and whether I support your bid for reelection to the Board of Directors depends on how you deal with my issues." Howard Dean started Democracy for America. We need Democracy for Wall Street.
The Board of Directors for every company in the country is who is making these decisions. If we buy their stocks, we can vote the Board of Directors out of office! Everyone on the Liberal side is running away from the stock market, and the Conservatives are laughing all the way to the board room. We need a Union centered campaign to get these SOB's off the Boards. If everyone in a union could pitch in $100, we'd have enough to buy enough stock to take over the company those union members are working for. It has to be a coordinated effort, and it must begin now.
Progressive means people against Big Money, but we have to fight fire with fire. BUY THEIR STOCK, VOTE THEM OUT!
This blog will be a place for us to talk about taking back this country, one share of stock at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)