DOCSLIB.ORG

GENERAL DYNAMICS Strength on Your Side

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
GENERAL DYNAMICS Strength on Your Side GENERAL DYNAMICS Strength on Your Side Annual Report 2004 Contents 2004 Financial Highlights 1 Letter to Shareholders 2 Information Systems and 8 Technology Combat Systems 10 Marine Systems 12 Aerospace 14 Financial Information 16 Directors and Officers inside back cover Corporate Information inside back cover On the cover: Between 1955 and 1965, General Dynamics commissioned Swiss-born artist Erik Nitsche (1908-98) to produce four series of posters to promote “the spirit of dis- covery” that inspired the company’s diverse business interests. The Nitsche posters are considered prime representations of the “Atomic Style” of industrial design. The 2004 Annual Report cover design mirrors the arrangement of a poster display at General Dynamics headquarters. Financial Highlights (Dollars in millions, except per share and employee amounts) 2004 2003 2002 Summary of Operations Net Sales $ 19,178 16,369 13,680 Operating Earnings 1,941 1,445 1,567 Earnings from Continuing Operations, Net of Tax 1,203 982 1,040 Discontinued Operations 24 22 (123) Net Earnings 1,227 1,004 917 Diluted Earnings Per Share Continuing Operations 5.97 4.93 5.13 Discontinued Operations 0.12 0.11 (0.61) Net Earnings 6.09 5.04 4.52 Net Cash Provided by Operating Activities 1,802 1,723 1,122 Capital Expenditures 266 222 262 Research and Development Company Sponsored 329 279 251 Customer Sponsored 194 229 134 Total 523 508 385 At Year End Total Backlog $ 42,074 40,645 28,745 Shareholders' Equity 7,189 5,921 5,199 Total Assets 17,544 16,183 11,731 Outstanding Shares of Common Stock 201,033,153 197,966,192 200,993,102 Number of Employees 70,200 65,600 53,400 Sales Per Employee $ 282,800 275,700 259,200 This Annual Report contains forward-looking statements that are contracts due to unilateral government action; differences in anticipat- based on management’s expectations, estimates, projections and ed and actual program performance, including the ability to perform assumptions. Words such as “expects,” “anticipates,” “plans,” under long-term fixed-price contracts within estimated costs, and “believes,” “scheduled,” “estimates” and variations of these words and performance issues with key suppliers and subcontractors; changing similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking state- customer demand or preferences for business aircraft, including the ments, which include but are not limited to projections of revenues, effects of economic conditions on the business-aircraft market; poten- earnings, segment performance, cash flows, contract awards, aircraft tial for changing prices for energy and raw materials; and the status or production, deliveries and backlog stability. Forward-looking state- outcome of legal and/or regulatory proceedings. ments are made pursuant to the safe harbor provisions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995, as amended. These state- All forward-looking statements speak only as of the date of this report ments are not guarantees of future performance and involve certain or, in the case of any document incorporated by reference, the date risks and uncertainties that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual of that document. All subsequent written and oral forward-looking future results and trends may differ materially from what is forecast in statements attributable to the company or any person acting on the forward-looking statements due to a variety of factors, including, with- company’s behalf are qualified by the cautionary statements in this out limitation, general U.S. and international political and economic section. The company does not undertake any obligation to update or conditions; changing priorities in the U.S. government’s defense publicly release any revisions to forward-looking statements to reflect budget (including changes in priorities in response to terrorist threats events, circumstances or changes in expectations after the date of or to improved homeland security); termination of government this report. Nicholas D. Chabraja Chairman and Chief Executive Officer Letter to the Shareholders Dear Fellow Shareholder: I am pleased to report that the results of services accelerate the integration of C4ISR operations at General Dynamics in 2004 advanced technologies into current platforms were superb. Revenues increased 17 per- and weapons. General Dynamics is par- cent to $19.2 billion and net earnings rose ticularly well positioned to benefit from this 22 percent to $1.2 billion. Cash generated spending because many of our advanced from operating activities reached an all communications and intelligence products time high of $1.8 billion. This gave us are ready to be integrated quickly and $1.5 billion in free cash – after capital effectively into the current force. expenditures – to further strengthen our balance sheet. Overall backlog increased We demonstrated our ability to capitalize to $42.1 billion, up $1.5 billion from 2003. on this growing C4ISR market with 15 Not surprisingly, the stock market rewarded significant program awards in 2004. this performance with 2004 total return of As a result, backlog for the Information 17.4 percent. Systems and Technology group increased more than 25 percent in 2004 to $9.4 billion. Operationally, we experienced sales This amount does not include an addition- growth in each of our four business al $6.3 billion in indefinite delivery, indefi- groups and margin improvement in three nite quantity contract awards that repre- of the four. We successfully integrated sent highly probable additional work. several significant acquisitions, consolidated two businesses in our Information Combat Systems Systems and Technology group and Our Combat Systems group also had an enjoyed the benefit of the re-engineering excellent year. Revenues rose 10 percent of Gulfstream that occurred in 2003. to $4.4 billion while operating earnings grew almost 18 percent to $522 million. Information Systems and Technology This growth was built on the strong per- The Information Systems and Technology formance of a number of key programs, group was our largest source of sales and including the Stryker combat vehicle and earnings, with revenues increasing almost the M1 Abrams tank, both of which have 40 percent to $6.8 billion and operating been successfully deployed by the U.S. earnings growing 33 percent to $715 million. Army in Iraq. Similarly, the U.S. Marine Approximately one-half of the growth was Corps has continued to rely on our family the result of acquisitions in 2003 and of Light Armored Vehicles (LAV) in their 2004 and the other half organic. The operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. organic growth reflects the continued The U.S. military’s increased need for demand by the U.S. and allied militaries ammunition and armaments also for C4ISR systems (command, control, contributed to the growth. As a result communications, computing, intelligence, of these activities, Combat Systems’ surveillance and reconnaissance). backlog increased to a record $8.7 billion Department of Defense funding for these from $8.3 billion in 2003. programs remains robust as the military General Dynamics 2004 Annual Report 3 Revenue by Customer Combat Systems is well positioned to Boat and a reduction in charges on a com- benefit from the increases in Army pro- mercial shipbuilding project at NASSCO. grams reflected in the President’s FY 2006 budget and in the FY 2005 supplemental The group’s funded backlog increased to funding request for operations in Iraq and almost $10 billion in 2004 from $8.8 billion 65% 16% Afghanistan. Our tank upgrade programs, in 2003. Total backlog decreased to replacement vehicles, ammunition and $16.8 billion from $18.2 billion – but 14% 5% armaments continue to be needed by improved again as a result of orders our deployed forces. received this January. This backlog repre- sents workload across our three shipyards ■ U.S. Defense Our European Land Combat Systems unit into the next decade. Despite near-term ■ U.S.Commercial continued to grow through increased sales of reductions in the U.S. Navy’s shipbuilding ■ International Defense Leopard tanks, Ulan infantry fighting vehi- budget, this backlog provides us with a sta- ■ International Commercial cles and Piranha combat vehicles. Demand ble, long-term source of revenue. Moreover, for combat vehicles worldwide is accelerat- as we continue to move down the learning ing and we believe we are well positioned curve at both Bath and NASSCO, we antici- to participate. pate improved performance and profitability against this backlog. Marine Systems While still not meeting our expectations, The Marine group passed several significant the Marine Systems group’s performance milestones in 2004 with the delivery at improved significantly in 2004. Revenues Electric Boat of the last ship in the Seawolf increased 11 percent to $4.7 billion, while Class of nuclear-powered attack submarines, operating income rose 35 percent to and the delivery of the first ship in the suc- $292 million. Likewise, operating margins cessor Virginia Class. In addition, Bath Iron increased to 6.2 percent from 5.1 percent Works delivered two Arleigh Burke-class in 2003. This margin improvement reflects guided missile destroyers and NASSCO continued increases in efficiency at Bath delivered the first of four state-of-the-art Iron Works, good performance at Electric double-hull oil tankers. Revenue by Group Net Earnings ($ in millions) ($ in millions) 24,000 20,000 19,178 16,369 1,500 16,000 1,227 13,680 12,000 11,909 1,004 1,000 943 ■ Information Systems 10,184 901 917 and Technology 8,000 ■ Combat Systems 500 ■ Marine Systems 4,000 ■ Aerospace ■ Resources $0 $0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 4 General Dynamics 2004 Annual Report Aerospace and growing for the foreseeable future. Total Backlog Gulfstream had a strong year in 2004. Internationally, our increased presence in ($ in millions) While revenue was up only modestly from Canada, the United Kingdom and continen- 2003, the makeup of the revenue was tal Europe provides us opportunities to important.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • 2020 Corporate Sustainability Report
    TRANSPARENCY. TRUST. ALIGNMENT. HONESTY. 2020 Corporate Sustainability Report OUR ETHOS TRANSPARENCY. TRUST. ALIGNMENT. HONESTY. These four values undergird everything we do at General Dynamics — they are our defining moral character. All of us at General Dynamics have a duty to behave according to these values. Through our shared Ethos, we ensure that we continue to be good stewards of the investments our shareholders, customers, employees and communities make in us, now and in the future. TABLE OF CONTENTS OUR ETHOS 2 A Letter From Our CEO 4 OUR BUSINESS 5 Our Values at Work 6 Business Overview 7 Corporate Responsibility 10 Global Supply Chain 12 GOVERNANCE 14 Corporate Governance 15 Ethics 18 Information Security 21 HUMAN CAPITAL MANAGEMENT 25 Employee Safety 26 Employee Well-Being 27 Developing and Engaging Our Talent 28 DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION 29 Diversity Is Critical to Innovation 30 Talent Recruiting and Retaining Diverse Talent 32 Awards & Recognition 36 ENVIRONMENT 37 Environmental Responsibility 38 Examples From Our Businesses 41 COMMUNITY RELATIONS 45 Investing in Our Communities 46 COVID-19 Response 50 REPORTING APPROACH 52 A Letter from Our CEO Dear Fellow Shareholder, Corporate sustainability at General Dynamics is rooted in our Ethos — our defining moral character as a company and the standard to which we hold ourselves and our more than 100,000 employees worldwide. It informs all that we do and guides us as we deliver value to our shareholders, our customers and our communities. Ongoing conversations with all of our stakeholders have been an integral part of building and evolving our sustainability program. We remain committed to reducing our global environmental impact, including our carbon footprint; protecting and promoting human rights; increasing the diversity of our workforce; supporting the health, welfare and safety of our employees; and fostering mutually beneficial relationships with our communities.
    [Show full text]
  • 2006-07 Annual Report
    ����������������������������� the chicago council on global affairs 1 The Chicago Council on Global Affairs, founded in 1922 as The Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, is a leading independent, nonpartisan organization committed to influencing the discourse on global issues through contributions to opinion and policy formation, leadership dialogue, and public learning. The Chicago Council brings the world to Chicago by hosting public programs and private events featuring world leaders and experts with diverse views on a wide range of global topics. Through task forces, conferences, studies, and leadership dialogue, the Council brings Chicago’s ideas and opinions to the world. 2 the chicago council on global affairs table of contents the chicago council on global affairs 3 Message from the Chairman The world has undergone On September 1, 2006, The Chicago Council on tremendous change since Foreign Relations became The Chicago Council on The Chicago Council was Global Affairs. The new name respects the Council’s founded in 1922, when heritage – a commitment to nonpartisanship and public nation-states dominated education – while it signals an understanding of the the international stage. changing world and reflects the Council’s increased Balance of power, national efforts to contribute to national and international security, statecraft, and discussions in a global era. diplomacy were foremost Changes at The Chicago Council are evident on on the agenda. many fronts – more and new programs, larger and more Lester Crown Today, our world diverse audiences, a step-up in the pace of task force is shaped increasingly by forces far beyond national reports and conferences, heightened visibility, increased capitals.
    [Show full text]
  • BOMBS AWAY' from 60,0
    The unconventional, far-ahead, supersonic B-58 Hustler is poised combat-ready at Cars- well AFB in Texas — a new addition to the free world's deterrent strength. USAF air- men and their B-58s have been engaged in intensive training. They have also taken time out to rewrite a page or two of the record book . 'BOMBS AWAY' from 60,0 Col. J. K. Johnson, USAF FORMER COMMANDER, 43d BOMB WING (M), SAC HE TARGET is Deerfield, Mass. You're twelve sive. It may not quite rival those reported by miles up, moving at twice the speed of sound. high-altitude record setters and balloonists, or T But there's no sense of speed, of motion. You nation's first Astronaut, but it still covers a giant fi seem to be hanging high above the earth on an in- of vision. To the right, far below, are the lights visible thread strung from somewhere in the universe. Buffalo, N. Y., 150 miles away. You see a lot of te It's calm, smooth, peaceful, quiet—in sharp con- tory from a dozen miles up—although you don't rea trast to the dread lethality of your bomb load. Actu- need to for purposes of this mission. All the infa ally, the bomb load is simulated. This is a practice mation required to plunk your "electronic payloac strike. It could be for real. Deerfield, some 3,500 on target is carried in black boxes in the plane. It miles from home base by a circuitous exercise route, automatically fed to computers to keep you on ems! provides a particular pattern on a radar screen.
    [Show full text]
  • General Dynamics Electric Boat Invoices
    General Dynamics Electric Boat Invoices tastedBruce panningswhole while prehistorically small-town Constantineif inessive Stanly monkey sleeved that sumpters.or vitalised. Festinate and sprightliest Rodrick sectarianizing some limos so lingually! Morton still The invoicing party of command and the developer shall be construed as this retirement benefits are currently under this Ifeither part breache an ofthe terms provisions orconditions ofthis Agreementb. Gtin information with written notice and this allegation is used as we also be. At General Dynamics Electric Boat We hook the sentence that. The versatile Greyhound can void support special operations and distinguished visitor transport requirements. Landlord of any or all other rights or remedies provided for in this Lease, if any, or now or hereafter existing at law or in equity or by statute or otherwise. Conflict mineral that year of invoices received from raw materials per share data, legal meaning to minimiz terroristhreat throug th. We are using cookies to give you the best experience follow our website. To the extent backlog has not been funded, there is no assurance that congressional appropriations or agency allotments will be forthcoming. Assigned to the Military Sealift Command they are manned by civilian mariners. AGREEMENT GENERAL DYNAMICS ELECTRIC BOAT. Electric boat corporation company estimates made in advanced gun and all gtins may be. City any attempt to supplying any manner cannot pay to take a general dynamics electric boat invoices have the delivery of being used. Terminal range of invoices received from indeed, service providers and deduction of? Haanyon eve aske me a captcha proves you agree on gold for general dynamics electric boat pursuant to.
    [Show full text]
  • SIRS High Technology Participants
    2012 US Mercer SIRS® Benchmark Survey – High Technology Industry Participant List High Technology – Aerospace and Defense Develops, delivers, and supports advanced integrated aerospace and defense systems and products. Aerojet Sacramento L3 Communications – Electrodynamics, Inc. Alliant Techsystems Inc. L3 Communications – ESSCO AIRINC Incorporated L3 Communications – Fuzing & Ordnance Systems B&W Y–12, LLC L3 Communications – Integrated Systems B/E Aerospace L3 Communications – Link Simulation & Training BAE Systems, Inc. L3 Communications – Linkabit Ball Corporation – Aerospace & Technologies Corp. L3 Communications – Ocean Systems Boeing Defense, Space and Security L3 Communications – PHOTONICS Cobham North America L3 Communications – Power Paragon, Inc. Corsair Engineering L3 Communications – Space and Navigation DRS Technologies L3 Communications – Telemetry West Eclipse Aerospace L3 Communications – Unmanned Systems Federal Aviation Administration L3 Communications – Westwood Corporation General Dynamics Corporation L3 Communications Corporation GKN Aerospace North America Division L3 Communications, Wescam Sonoma Operations Goodrich ISR Systems Lockheed Martin Honeywell Lockheed Martin – Space Systems INSITU, INC. MDA Information Systems, Inc L3 Communications – Aerospace Electronics Moog Inc. L3 Communications – Applied Signal & National Security Technologies, LLC Image Technology Nordam Group, The L3 Communications – Applied Technologies Northrop Grumman Corporation Pulse Sciences Northrop Grumman Corporation – Enterprise Shared
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix C – Key Studies on Aircraft Deviation ACRP 4-09 - Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards
    Appendix C – Key Studies on Aircraft Deviation ACRP 4-09 - Risk Assessment Method to Support Modification of Airfield Separation Standards The following table summarizes some of the most relevant studies addressing lateral aircraft deviations during runway, taxiway and taxilane operations. The models developed by Scholz (2003a and 2003b) were used in the approach to analyze taxiway and taxilane separations. Table C-1. Relevant studies on aircraft lateral deviation in airfields Title Year/Author Description Evaluation of Brown & This study was conducted with test sections for B-47 Existing Thompson, 1973 (Stratojet), B-52, KC-87, and KC-135 aircraft. The Airfields for C- report also makes reference to studies conducted in 1949 5A Operations and field observations carried out in 1956. The concept of wander was introduced. Wander was defined as “the maximum lateral movement of a point on the centerline of an aircraft about the centerline (or guideline) on taxiways or runways during operation of the aircraft.” The lateral deviations for those aircraft from the taxiway and runway centerlines can be considered as approximately 3.2 ft and 33.7 ft, respectively, during 75 percent of the time. Field Survey and HoSang, 1975 Deviation data were collected from 9 airports and 12 Analysis of types of commercial aircraft with maximum gross Aircraft weights above 50,000 pounds, including: Boeing 747, Distribution on 707, 727 and 737; McDonnell-Douglas DC-10, DC-8 and Airport DC-9; Lockheed L-1101; General Dynamics Convair 880 Pavements and 580; British Aircraft Corporation BAC-111; and Nihon YS-11. The standard deviations for individual aircraft types, compared at the various airports, varied from 3 to 8 ft for takeoffs and from 4 to 9 ft for landings.
    [Show full text]
  • Marine Corps Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV)
    Updated June 10, 2021 Marine Corps Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) What Is the Advanced Reconnaissance anti-armor capability to defeat close-in heavy armor Vehicle (ARV)? threats; According to the Marine Corps, the Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) aims to be a new armored precision-guided munitions (PGMs) to defeat threats vehicle family to replace the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) beyond the engagement range of threat systems; (Figure 1): Since the 1980s, the Light Armored Vehicle (LAV) unmanned systems swarm capability to provide persistent, multifunction munitions; has supported Marine Air-Ground Task Force missions on the battlefield. While the LAV remains advanced, networked, multifunctional electronic warfare operationally effective, the life cycle of this system (EW ) capabilities; is set to expire in the mid-2030s…. The Advanced Reconnaissance Vehicle (ARV) [the LAV’s a modern command-and-control suite and a full range of replacement] will be highly mobile, networked, sensors to enhance and extend reconnaissance and transportable, protected, and lethal. The capability surveillance ranges; will provide, sensors, communication systems and lethality options to overmatch threats that have organic unmanned aerial and ground systems historically been addressed with more heavily (UAS/UGS) that can be deployed from the ARV; armored systems. The ARV will be an advanced combat vehicle system, capable of fighting for active and passive vehicle protection capabilities to information that balances competing capability sense, orient, classify, track, and defeat incoming demands to sense, shoot, move, communicate and rocket-propelled grenades (RPGs), anti-tank guided remain transportable as part of the naval missiles (ATGMs), and PGM threats with hard-and soft- expeditionary force.
    [Show full text]
  • INTRODUCING the ALL-NEW GULFSTREAM G500 and G600 When You Start with a Clean Sheet, the Opportunities Are Boundless
    THE MAGAZINE FOR GULFSTREAM EMPLOYEES INTRODUCING THE ALL-NEW GULFSTREAM G500 AND G600 When you start with a clean sheet, the opportunities are boundless. Gulfstream and its employees celebrate the next generation of aircraft – the G500 and G600. SPECIAL ISSUE | JANUARY 2015 the president’s JANUARY 2015 SPECIAL ISSUE corner Waypoint is published for employees of Gulfstream Aerospace Corporation. The magazine’s mission is to LARRY FLYNN inform and entertain; to bring together people from our many sites, teams, disciplines and interests; and to instill a sense of company pride. It also seeks to provide thoughtful, in-depth articles on GULFSTREAM IS our company’s people, programs and initiatives PHOTO: KATHY ALMAND in an effort to strengthen our common bond BOUNDLESS and adhere to our corporate vision. Since Grumman introduced the Gulfstream I VICE PRESIDENT TECHNICAL MARKETING & in 1958, Gulfstream has grown its reputation COMMUNICATIONS Steve Cass through a history of industry firsts, record-set- EDITORIAL DIRECTOR ting aircraft, technological innovations, global Philip Hanyok service and support initiatives and an expand- EDITOR Laura Wentz ing worldwide customer base. Oct. 14, 2014, PHOTOGRAPHY EDITORS was yet another extraordinary day in our sto- Matthew Stephan Beth Getman ried history. PHOTOGRAPHY On that day, we ushered in a new era for Kathy Almand Paul Bowen Gulfstream by introducing the all-new G500 and G600, helping us further our vision John Dibbs Lori Dynan to create and deliver the world’s finest aviation experience. Stephanie Lipscomb These clean-sheet aircraft reflect an optimal combination of form, function and Josh Triplett efficiency, with wide cabins, advanced-technology flight decks and high-speed perfor- GRAPHIC DESIGN Chic Graphic Design mance.
    [Show full text]
  • (Exact Name of Registrant As Specified in Its Charter) Delaware 13
    U NITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, D.C. 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) [X] ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2018 OR [ ] TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934 For the transition period from _______ to _______ Commission File Number 1-3671 GENERAL DYNAMICS CORPORATION (Exact name of registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 13-1673581 State or other jurisdiction of incorporation or organization IRS Employer Identification No. 2941 Fairview Park Drive, Suite 100 Falls Church, Virginia 22042-4513 Address of principal executive offices Zip code Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (703) 876-3000 Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of exchange on which registered Common stock, par value $1 per share New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act: None Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes ü No ___ Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes ___ No ü Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.
    [Show full text]
  • Silver Spoon Oligarchs
    CO-AUTHORS Chuck Collins is director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies where he coedits Inequality.org. He is author of the new book The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions. Joe Fitzgerald is a research associate with the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Helen Flannery is director of research for the IPS Charity Reform Initiative, a project of the IPS Program on Inequality. She is co-author of a number of IPS reports including Gilded Giving 2020. Omar Ocampo is researcher at the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good and co-author of a number of reports, including Billionaire Bonanza 2020. Sophia Paslaski is a researcher and communications specialist at the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Kalena Thomhave is a researcher with the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Sarah Gertler for her cover design and graphics. Thanks to the Forbes Wealth Research Team, led by Kerry Dolan, for their foundational wealth research. And thanks to Jason Cluggish for using his programming skills to help us retrieve private foundation tax data from the IRS. THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES The Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) is a multi-issue research center that has been conducting path-breaking research on inequality for more than 20 years. The IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good was founded in 2006 to draw attention to the growing dangers of concentrated wealth and power, and to advocate policies and practices to reverse extreme inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunity.
    [Show full text]
  • San Diego History Center Is a Museum, Education Center, and Research Library Founded As the San Diego Historical Society in 1928
    The Journal of San Diego Volume 58 Fall 2012 Number 4 • The Journal of San Diego Number History 2012 58 Fall Volume History Publication of The Journal of San Diego History is underwritten by a major grant from the Quest for Truth Foundation, established by the late James G. Scripps. Additional support is provided by “The Journal of San Diego History Fund” of the San Diego Foundation and private donors. The color section for the Charles Reiffel Exhibit Review has been underwritten by Thompson Fetter. The San Diego History Center is a museum, education center, and research library founded as the San Diego Historical Society in 1928. Its activities are supported by: the City of San Diego’s Commission for Arts and Culture; the County of San Diego; individuals; foundations; corporations; fundraising events; membership dues; admissions; shop sales; and rights and reproduction fees. Articles appearing in The Journal of San Diego History are abstracted and indexed in Historical Abstracts and America: History and Life. The paper in the publication meets the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Science-Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1984. Front Cover: Charles Reiffel, San Diego Harbor. Oil on Canvas, 1936. The San Diego History Center on loan from the Fine Arts Program, Public Building Services, US General Administration, commissioned through the New Deal art projects. Charles Reiffel: An American Post-Impressionist, Catalogue No. 63. Back Cover: Charles Reiffel, detail from History of San Diego—Colonial, 1939. The San Diego History Center, gift of Donna Sefton. Cover Design: Allen Wynar The Journal of San Diego History IRIS H.
    [Show full text]
  • Read the Report Silver Spoon Oligarchs
    CO-AUTHORS Chuck Collins is director of the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies where he coedits Inequality.org. He is author of the new book The Wealth Hoarders: How Billionaires Pay Millions to Hide Trillions. Joe Fitzgerald is a research associate with the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Helen Flannery is director of research for the IPS Charity Reform Initiative, a project of the IPS Program on Inequality. She is co-author of a number of IPS reports including Gilded Giving 2020. Omar Ocampo is researcher at the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good and co-author of a number of reports, including Billionaire Bonanza 2020. Sophia Paslaski is a researcher and communications specialist at the IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good. Kalena Thomhave is a researcher with the Program on Inequality and the Common Good at the Institute for Policy Studies. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors wish to thank Sarah Gertler for her cover design and graphics. Thanks to the Forbes Wealth Research Team, led by Kerry Dolan, for their foundational wealth research. And thanks to Jason Cluggish for using his programming skills to help us retrieve private foundation tax data from the IRS. THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES The Institute for Policy Studies (www.ips-dc.org) is a multi-issue research center that has been conducting path-breaking research on inequality for more than 20 years. The IPS Program on Inequality and the Common Good was founded in 2006 to draw attention to the growing dangers of concentrated wealth and power, and to advocate policies and practices to reverse extreme inequalities in income, wealth, and opportunity.
    [Show full text]