What do you fear? People are moved to action by their fears. Sometimes our fears lurk at the edge of our consciousness, and then are brought into sharp focus by events. Dying oceans, polluted lakes and streams, unsafe drinking water in major cities, catastrophic hurricanes, severe drought and wildfires, and an increase in the severity of weather events, have brought environmental problems into the things Americans fear.

The annual Chapman University Survey of American Fears in 2017 provides an in-depth examination into the fears of average Americans. The survey looked at 80 fears and ranked them according to the survey responses The chart below lists America’s top 10 fears for 2017. For the first time ever, not one, but four of the top 10 fears are related to the deterioration of the environment. Pollution of natural waters, unsafe drinking water, global warming, and air pollution are now among Americans worst 10 fears.

It is not only natural disasters that occurred in 2017, but also political events . Americans had considered that the Environmental Protection Agency would protect our natural waters from pollution. However, Scott Pruitt, the current Environmental Protection Agency director, decided not to enforce major pollution laws, and fired the EPA’s entire Science Advisory Board. No advice, no research, no problem. People are beginning to realize that what you don’t know can hurt you.

The publicity surrounding the failure of the state and local government of Flint Michigan to protect the city’s residents from lead poisoning, and the subsequent discovery of lead and other toxins in our city water supplies, have made people fear that their water is not safe to drink. Almost everyone lives downstream from someone, and pollutants that find their way into our water supplies are bound to find their way into us.

Many Americans perceived the results of climate change remote and far into the future. The attribution of worsening disasters to climate change, and the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Accord have brought carbon emissions and air pollution into sharper focus. Pictures of severe smog in China and the data from the American Heart and the American Lung Associations about the number of deaths caused by air pollution and particulates are making people increasingly fear for their health.

Action and participation is the antidote for what fear can create, a  feeling of helplessness. Our fears should create the will for political action on climate change and pollution. Even with the failure of our government and the EPA to protect the environment, we can still do it using market forces. The best plan is the carbon fee and dividend system as proposed by the Citizens Climate Lobby. The CCL legislative proposal would set an initial fee on carbon at $15 per ton of CO2 at the source and would increase it by $10 each year until the CO2 emissions were reduced to 10% of the 1990 US levels. The carbon fees are not a tax, as they would be rebated 100% to American households. It would give every American citizen a stake in conserving energy and reducing their use of carbon fuels,  which would both cut pollution and improve the economy. Exercise the power in your citizenship, and insist your Representative support action on climate change.

Credit: Thanks to Darrel Hart, President of the Wichita CCL Chapter, for suggesting the idea and supplying some of the wording in the article.

(C) 2017 J.C. Moore

The framework for nuclear deal with Iran has now been approved with the details to be worked out later.

In Our Hands

Eventually the Senate will be called upon to ratify the final treaty, and it is important that we begin building support for the treaty in Congress. A war between Iran and Israel would destabilize the Middle East further and lead to unthinkable war and terrorism. Please write your Senator, and also your Representative as well,  to ask for their support. Below is a letter that I sent to my Legislators, which you may use for ideas. I am sure there will be several petitions circulating about this, but sometimes a personal letter carries more weight.

The US had many Iranian students and friends back in the 60s and 70s who thought America was great. When the Revolution started, many of them returned home to protect their families. Iran has been under the control of extremists for over 30 years and the moderates have just recently been able to elect a president who wishes to improve relationships with United States and remove the sanctions on their country. If we think we have trouble in the Middle East now, imagine how it would be if a war started between Israel and Iran, and the radicals seize power again.

While the negotiated agreement may not be all we would wish, we should give it a chance. Under the framework, Iran would give up two-thirds of its centrifuges used to enrich uranium and would reduce its stockpile of low-enriched uranium from 10,000 kilograms to 300 kilograms. These two things alone would diminish Tehran’s ability to produce a nuclear weapon. Its nuclear apparatus would be smaller, and under these guidelines, Iran’s pathway to nuclear weapons, while certainly not impossible, would be much more difficult.

Iran would convert its underground nuclear reactor, which could produce weapons grade plutonium, to one which could not and would be used primarily for research purposes. The agreement contains inspection and verification to see that Iran complies fully.

Please support the agreement. It is not just a treaty with United States, but with six other countries and the European Union. Our failure to approve it would cause trouble with our allies, who are anxious to put an end to this crisis, and could lead to a devastating war in the Middle East.

Note added on 1/06/2016: Most people don’t realize how close we came to a catastrophic war between Israel and Iran over Iran’s nuclear program.  As agreed in the nuclear treaty,  Iran recently shipped its stockpile of over 25,000 pounds of low-enriched uranium materials to Russia, ensuring that Iran’s nuclear program will be peaceful going forward.

(c) 2015 – J.C. Moore

This is a guest post by Barbara Moore.

Hearing that voting was not a Constitutional right and that it is not mentioned in the United States Constitution made me feel kind of disillusioned. Wait a minute, as a woman I am well aware of the hard won right for women to vote. I know this is protected in the 19^th Amendment of the United States Constitution.

The 19^th Amendment plainly states, “The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged…” The RIGHT of citizens of the United States to vote should be clear enough as it is used here – for even those who say that the right to vote is not in the Constitution. But, if that is not enough, the right to voteis also mentioned four other times in the Constitution. As well as the 19^th, it is mentioned in the 15^th, 24^th and 26^th Amendments to the Constitution. Each time it plainly states the right of citizens of the Unites States to vote….

I do not think any other right is mentioned five times in the Constitution as is the case with the right to vote. It should be clear  that the Constitution of the United States plainly states that is a right of citizens of the United States and makes clear that it is also a protected right which, “shall not be abridged or denied.”

Unfortunately,the need for the four special Amendments has been due to the injustice of political manipulation. Perhaps, sadly, even with these protections of the right to vote, we have not seen the end of political attempts at the manipulation of citizens’ right to vote.

Here is a link to a very good article by Garrett Epps who teaches Constitutional Law.

(C) 2015  Barbara Moore

The Trickle-down Theory, has been around a long time. Back in the 1800’s, they called it the Horse and Sparrow Theory. If you feed the horse enough grain, some of it will be left over for the sparrows. No economist took it seriously. By Will Rogers day it was called the trickle-down theory and the picture shows what he thought of it. Eric Laffer convinced Ronald Reagan that he should try Laffer’s version of it, and the economy grew less while the public debt ballooned. George W. Bush tried the same thing, and that plus two unfunded wars put our nation deeper in debt.

At the state level, Oklahoma has tried their version of it. They are now having to make cuts in education, infrastructure, the salaries of public workers, and pension plans. Even yet, Oklahoma is cutting taxes even more next year thinking that the problem is that they just have not tried it hard enough. Governor Sam Brownback has put Kansas deeply in debt with his experiment, he calls it, with the trickle-down theory. He refuses to raise taxes even though there is $179 million budget shortfall. Governor Brownback, too, thinks the problem is that Kansans just have not wished hard enough that Tickle-down Theory will work. He is also wishing that the $500 million budget deficit projected for next year will somehow magically go away.

Will Rogers had the theory right. Money trickles up and pools at the top. Those at the top really like that, and they pour campaign money to politicians who will try keep trying the Trickle-down Theory. If there is one good thing that comes out of Brownback’s experiment in Kansas, it will prove once and for all that the Trickle-down Theory does not work. Why should it, it never has.

At one time, most American companies saw their role as being responsible to their stakeholders, i.e., being a good corporate citizen and taking care of both its stockholders and its workers. There was a change in the 1980’s toward increasing shareholder value, i.e., a shift toward considering the companies’ profits to be primary even if it hurt the rest of its stakeholders. The graph at the right shows how that change affected our economy. Corporate profits increased,  CEO pay increased remarkably, and worker wages stagnated.

An example: Wal-Mart is a good example of that shift. As with many companies, the corporate culture changes when the founder dies. Sam Walton believed you should buy American and that you should treat workers fairly, a policy of maximizing stakeholder value. His heirs apparently thought that profits should be the main goal, a policy of maximizing shareholder value, and in the process making themselves fabulously wealthy. The company now imports many of their products and pays its workers poorly. Wal-Mart just announced that it may raise its minimum salary to $8.50 an hour. The Tulsa World editorial board approved saying,” If they (the workers) earn more, they will spend more, spurring the economy. They also will be less prone to need government entitlements such as food stamps.”  True, and while the salary increase may sound generous, it really isn’t. In 2009, when the minimum wage was raised to $7.50, Wal-Mart stock was worth $50 a share. In 2014, workers still earn only $7.50, but the stock is now at $88. If wages had kept up with the stock price, the minimum wage worker would get $13.20.

Earnings: Corporate earnings are one of the most closely watched indicators of a company’s profitability. Stock prices reflect the companies earning or its potential for earnings. Wall Street likes it that way, as it boils a company’s value down to one number which can be measured or approximately estimated for the future. CEO salaries are closely tied to their stock’s performance, making increased shareholder value the primary goal of the company. This leads to policies which boost the company’s earnings and the CEO’s pay in the short term, even though it may hurt the company in the long term. That’s why most CEOs insist on Golden Parachutes which make them fabulously wealthy even if the company declines in the future. Rewarding CEO’s for increased profits had led to policies that created a huge pay gap. While in 1980 CEO earned 42  times as much as an average worker, that gap has grown to 354 times as much.

Abuses: Salaries are one of the biggest expenses for most companies, and keeping average employee salaries low increases profits. Announcing layoffs, though it may reduce a company’s future productivity, is often rewarded with an increase in stock price. Some companies resort to practices such as shifting earnings overseas, setting up tax havens, or ignoring safety and environmental regulations which would cost money to implement. These policies hurt the workers, damage the US economy, and sometimes shift a companies business expenses to the US taxpayer. Many companies justify these practices by saying that they are following the law, but we should not forget that many of the laws were made by politicians influenced by lobbyists and money. Even though they are following the law, the ethics and the patriotism of those companies are questionable.

Stakeholders: Though Wall Street and CEOs may profit from the focus on shareholder value, there are other stakeholders in the company who should be considered. Workers have a stake in the company as their well-being depends on it. Yet, low pay makes workers lives miserable and many of them must sacrifice time with their family in order to take a second job. Taxpayers also a have a stake in companies. Tax avoidance and tax havens reduce tax revenue and add to the national debt. Shifting jobs overseas hurts American worker’s buying power and reduces their contributions to income taxes. Workers who are unable to afford health insurance or enough food for their family are forced to apply for government assistance. This shifts the burden to taxpayers and the reduced purchasing power slows the economy. Cutting corners on safety means damage to worker’s lives and health and puts a burden on our healthcare and workmen’s compensation system. And, we are all stakeholders in the environment as clean air, pure water, and a hospitable environment are considered our birthright.

Stakeholder value: The idea that corporations exist to reward shareholders arose not from law but from the work of ideologically driven economists. It’s a shift that Wall Street and corporate executives brought about, as they reap the rewards. They argue that shareholder capitalism will bring about the greatest good for our society, but in reality it is created economic inequality that is destroying the quality of life for a majority of American citizens.  As a contrast, Germany has adopted an emphasis on stakeholder values.  German corporation are required by law to have at least 50% of hourly workers on corporate boards. German workers are involved in decision about wages, healthcare, pensions, overtime, vacations, and other decisions that affect them. The workers certainly have an incentive to see that the company succeeds and they have more security and opportunity than ours. Germany has the strongest economy among the European Union countries and a much greater after tax economic equality .

Socially responsible investors recognize the value of considering all the stakeholders in a company. Many retirement funds and investment firms have social choice investment funds.  The fund’s investments favor companies that are strong stewards of the environment; devoted to serving local communities; committed to higher labor standards; dedicated to producing high-quality and safe products; and those managed in an exemplary or ethical manner. Though the funds are chosen for their ethical values, some of them do quite well. The TIAA-CREF Social Choice Equity Fund, for example, now has $2.6 billion in assets and has grown at the rate of 15% a year for the last five years.  Socialist choice funds are often less volatile as they are more immune to the wild swings in stock prices that occur when earnings reports come out.

Another factor driving the shift toward stakeholder investing is the choice by socially responsible institutions to divest from corporations which have a history of worker or environmental abuses. At its 2014 meeting in  Geneva, the Central Committee of the World Council of Churches (WCC), a fellowship of over 300 churches which represent some 590 million people in 150 countries, endorsed fossil fuel divestment, agreeing to phase out its own holdings and it encouraged its members to do the same.

Social entrepreneurism: Is not likely that the United States will pass laws requiring more emphasis on stakeholder values, but there is beginning to be a shift in that direction. There was recently an entrepreneurial seminar which promoted “Social entrepreneurism: the tricky balance of doing good while doing well”. It pointed out that twenty-seven states have passed legislation to make ”for benefit corporations”, called B Corporations,  possible. These are tax paying for-profit corporations which include an explicit social mission in their corporate charters.  One example is Grameen Bank, an organization that popularized micro-credit, which makes small loans to impoverished families in developing countries so they can invest in small businesses. Its founder was recognized with a Nobel Prize. Another example is Ben & Jerry’s ice cream, with its explicit corporate emphasis on social causes, such as paying more for sustainably grown milk, sugar, eggs, vanilla and chocolate; curbing climate change; and mandatory labeling of genetically modified organisms. People are apparently willing to pay more for a product from companies that emphasize stakeholder values.

(c) 2014   J.C. Moore

The chart at the right compares the 1956 Republican platform when Eisenhower ran with what the party’s platform seems to be today. Some things evolve, and some things devolve. The modern Republican Party is an example of the latter. Trying to hold power, rather than govern well, the party has molded itself to satisfy the religious right, the anti-science anti-intellectuals, the false conservatives, and the very wealthy. Unable to progress as the world changes, without offending those, the party leaders have taken the path of obstructionism.

It is a rather vicious cycle for Republicans. As moderates and progressives move away from the party, the extremist are more in control. That influence is seen most in the primaries where the extremist and money interests can insert more influence to elect their candidates. It is tough to be an Eisenhower Republican these days.

The 2014 platform is very similar to that developed by the Republican Party in 2012. Republican leaders  used a push poll to develop the 2012 Republican presidential platform. Here  is an analysis of that poll.  The poll was an affront to intelligent Republicans as it was not really to solicit their opinions but instead an effort to spread propaganda and to raise money. It signaled the big money interests and extremists that if they gave generously, the Party would reward them. And it did. Here is an analysis of the 2012 Republican Party platform that Romney ran on. Can any Republican actually be proud of that platform? It is no wonder Romney lost.

Which platform in the chart do you prefer? It will never be 1956 again, but think where we might be today if the Republican Party had remained progressive. It is time for the Grand Old Party to become Grand again.

We have heard so much bad economic news that most people believe it, even though it is not true.The economy has recovered to the point that the economic stimulus is being ended. That would normally be good news. It is strange that it has not been widely disseminated and many people may be unaware of it. You may read a little piece here and there in the paper about it, but it hasn’t seemed to enter the public’s mind. Actually, since it would help the Democrats, great efforts have been made by some money interests and obstructionists to downplay the recovery.

The chart at the right summarizes the recovery in the last five years. Though it was put together by the Occupy Democrats, the numbers seem to be accurate and can be checked. Normally the President would get credit for the recovery, but not so much in this case as it would likely help the Democrats in the next election. The news could probably have been even better except for the missed opportunities caused by obstructionists in Congress. I hope some of them will join the jobless after the next election.