Joining us are panelists:

• Tom Brunell, PhD – Professor of Political Science, University of Texas at Dallas
• Wade Emmert, JD – Chairman: Dallas County Republican Party
• Luis Roberto Vera Jr. – Attorney and Counselor at Law, LULAC National General Counsel
• Matthew Wilson, PhD – Associate Professor of Political Science, Southern Methodist University

While Abbott has said several minority groups agreed to the plan, other minority groups have chosen to fight the decision. The Mexican American Legislative Caucus argues that the new plan, which actually redraws boundaries for both Congressional and State legislative districts, dilutes minority influence in some areas. Joining us on this program, Luis Roberto Vera, LULAC National General Counsel, counters, “The deal means absolutely nothing… How do you try to navigate between these things that are essentially political and yet keep it fair? We need to strengthen the vote, not lessen it”.

Left to Right: Matthew Wilson, Wade Emmert, Luis Roberto Vera, Jr., Tom Brunell

The Census Bureau counts Americans every 10 years. Based on the population in each state, some states gain or lose Congressional seats. The 2010 Census resulted in Texas gaining four additional seats – from 32 to 36. Texas population growth in the last 10 years has resulted in 2.8 million more Hispanics, 523,000 more Afro-Americans and 465,000 more whites. Based on the new census figures, the minority groups want 3 of the 4 new districts. As is usual, the majority party (in this case, Republicans) re-drew the boundaries for all the seats, including the new ones. Texas is one of nine states subject to the Federal Voting Rights Act of 1965, which means, that a federal court has to approve the new boundaries. A San Antonio Court had redrawn the boundaries to favor Democrats. Republicans objected, as they believed these districts would vote Democrat. The resulting dissension over new voting maps has become a key and bitter issue, postponing elections until a “fair” outcome can be determined. Yet what is “fair”?

With the help of scholars, Dr. Tom Brunell and Dr. Matthew Wilson, on this program we discuss: what redistricting is, why and when it’s done, the need for proportionality, the influence of the Voter Rights Act, and the many lawsuits in this particular Texas case. Wade Emmert, Chairman of the Dallas County Republican Party and Luis Roberto Vera, Jr, with LULAC- give us their insights, arguments and perspective from their competing viewpoints.

The process of deciding where lines are drawn and how minorities are treated is complex. Some groups claim that the present system is discriminatory. Gerrymandering results in odd districts and drawing fair districts is critical.

Gerrymandering came to be exactly 200 years ago and is alive and well today. According to Oxford, to Gerrymander means to: “manipulate the boundaries of (an electoral constituency) so as to favor one party or class. In Texas, as well as other states, the way seats are divvied up could be pivotal in determining which party – Republican or Democrat controls the U.S. House. With the upcoming Presidential election, these decisions could well influence who becomes our next president.

Don’t miss this lively “debate” and conversation about things that Really matter with people who Really care. This conversation affects your future. And we want to hear your comments so please post to our website and get the word out on Twitter.

Thanks for joining us,

Niki Nicastro McCuistion
Executive Producer/ Producer
Speaker/ Consultant on Transformational Change
@McCuistionTV
nikin@nikimccuistion.com
214-750-5157

***

2003 – 05/20/2012

Former Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, as told by Mr. Blundell, in his book Portrait of an Iron Lady, had innate qualities that led to her eventually being elected to Parliament in 1959.  The Iron Lady, as she is often referred to, had a strong commitment to free market economies, limited government and rule of law. She was well known for her strength of character, her unswerving willingness to fight for a cause that would make Britain stronger and for her ability to understand how government should work.

Her character and values played no small part in her resoundingly successful career as Prime Minister; helping to bring Britain to world class status once again.

Mr. Blundell’s work explains Margaret Thatcher to the American public: who she was, her values, principles and why she felt so strongly about limited ‘government’.

He gives us an intriguing insight into the events that led to Ms. Thatcher’s commitment to serving; from World War II and Britain’s rejection of Winston Churchill in the 1945 elections, the nationalization of public industries, the Tories being overthrown, and Britain’s luke- warm socialism for over 4 decades, to its being ranked 19th on the OECD ladder. All of this contributed to the way Ms. Thatcher governed and her determination to make Britain a world class power once again.

Join us for an inside look at the Iron Lady.

Thanks again for joining us as we continue talking about things that matter with people who care.

***

1913 – 07.17.11

This program addresses several areas that led to our system almost going down:

- Where were mistakes made and by whom? What changes are needed and by whom?
- What is the current mood of investors and how do they feel about corporate performance?
- What about Madoff, Stanford and other frauds?

Panelists Include:

• Max D. Hopper: Founder, Max D. Hopper Associates
• Robert J. Potter: President, R.J. Potter Company
• Shad Rowe: President, Investors for Director, Accountability Foundation

Dennis McCuistion starts by chronicling the above, “our nation’s source of building capital has instead become merely the capitol of greed.” He follows the statement by asking Shad Rowe why he is so angry.

Shad replies,

“I don’t look that angry. But I am angry at what’s happening in corporate America. Our system almost went down the drain. Why? The real cause in my opinion is that corporate boards are not representing owners, not thinking like owners and are allowing chief executives to make ‘heads’ I win; ‘tails’ shareholders lose, bets that have jeopardized our system.

Shareholders are directly represented by their corporate directors. It’s the law, but it’s not conventional wisdom and… it needs to become so, so we can preserve and enhance our system … Ownership is the litmus test. Private companies treated money like it was their own money. Directors are the legal representatives of shareholders!”

Bob Potter adds,

“Directors are absolutely responsive/responsible to stockholders. In the companies I serve as director, we have created incentive plans to management that are tied to stockholder performance. Some companies have allowed management to not act in the best interests of shareholders. We see excessive salaries, for instance. But they were approved by the compensation committee.”

Max Hopper says,

“Most corporate board directors really do represent shareholders. But some companies have gotten so big, that directors can not get their arms around what’s going on within the companies themselves. Too large a growth may be detrimental to their shareholders.”

All agree that more stringent rules need to be applied and that directors must act in the best interests of the shareholders. They also state that most companies are in fact doing their best to do so, yet we hear the bad news, not the good. Tune in for lively, straightforward talk about greed and Wall Street and what needs to happen to preserve capitalism.

As always we’ve been talking about things that matter with people who care. Thanks for joining us.

—

Niki Nicastro McCuistion
Executive Producer/ producer

And a special thank you to the Institute for Excellence in Corporate Governance, University of Texas at Dallas, School of Management, (http://som.utdallas.edu/iecg/) for providing the guests for this 4 part series on Corporate Governance.

***

12.27.09 – 1810

Airing at 12:00 PM on KERA this Sunday, May 6th

The virtual loss in 2008 of the large investment bankers on Wall Street was shocking. The forced sale of Bear Stearns, the bankruptcy of Lehman, the controversial sale of Merrill Lynch and the changes at Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley have rocked the world.

This program addresses several areas that led to our system almost going down:

- Where were mistakes made and by whom? What changes are needed and by whom?
- What is the current mood of investors and how do they feel about corporate performance?
- What about Madoff, Stanford and other frauds?

Panelists Include:

• Max D. Hopper: Founder, Max D. Hopper Associates
• Robert J. Potter: President, R.J. Potter Company
• Shad Rowe: President, Investors for Director, Accountability Foundation

For more information browse our website or call Niki McCuistion at 214-750-5157 or email at nikin@nikimccuistion.com.

Formed by the Heritage Foundation, its purpose is to get word out to its members and Congress about the economy and state of the Union. Presently it has over 750,000 members, 1600 in every congressional district in the country. This makes them essentially an “employer” to be reckoned with in each region, and a large one at that.  When they walk into a Capital Hill office, they are going to be listened to and command respect.

One of their major concerns is the national debt- now 1.6 trillion dollars in size and growing. It takes 40 cents of every dollar to fund government with Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, three of the top budget areas of spending. According to Russ Vought, this will consume all spending in the next 30 years. There could be no other funds for anything else unless we double taxes.

He doesn’t advocate doing so, but if we are presently borrowing 40 cents out of every dollar from someone. We need to take Draconian measures to correct this situation. US spending is definitely a problem. If we could get 5 of GDP down to 20%, we could in fact balance the budget.

He addressed the job situation and said people who give jobs are the entrepreneurs who put it back into the economy. Taxing small business is the last thing to do in time of needed economic growth. Heritage does not feel raising taxes is the solution.

Join us as we discuss US spending, the national debt, and what congress needs to do.

As always, we’re talking about things that matter… with people who care.

Is it possible to regain lost wealth considering the market and that return of investment (rather than return on investment) may be a more accurate statement?

Joining us once again are:

* John Mauldin: Author of ENDGAME: The End of the Debt Supercycle and How It Changes Everything;
* Hank N. Mulvihill, Jr., CCM, CWS,CFP: Founder of Fed Friday, and
* Fred Richards: President and CEO of the Adrich Corporation.

Fred Richards believes, one can make money at any time if one looks for new technologies that revolutionize and make things happen, from Google to Facebook, “keep an eye out for what the young are looking at.” He tells us, that by watching companies that are broad-based, with a strong customer base and what entices people to use that product-”that’s where the big money is.”

John Mauldin intrigues us with his comments on health today and the implications of our living longer, “100 years ago people lived to be 30-40 years old. Through better technology and health we’re living longer.” A biotechnology advocate, he comments on the possible death of viruses, the new technologies that will be considerably more proactive, and the accelerating curve in both technology and health in the somewhat near future.

Hank Mulvihill’s Fed Friday, features invited speakers such as David Walker, the nation’s former top auditor, the 7th Comptroller General of the US and the CEO of the U.S. Government Accountability Office from 1998-2008, on the imbalances and non-sustainable economic landscape. Hank comments on the economic differences today as compared to five or ten years ago, such as negative interest rates; the theft of elderly people’s money as there is no real return on what many had invested in. Investments need to be looked at differently, “How do you ensure your future by buying bonds at 2%”?

So the question we remain concerned about is will in fact our investments and money outlive us? Tune in to hear the rest of what the experts have to say and make up your own mind.

Virtually every sovereign nation in the world is over indebted with the United States leading the way. We’ve all seen the fiascos in Greece and Ireland and are awaiting the meltdowns in Italy, Spain and Portugal. While we may be familiar with the debt our federal government owes and what the implications are, we may not be aware of just how over leveraged other nations are.

ENDGAME examines the effect and impact of the present financial crisis on the world and the USA economy and examine what may happen when all these countries can no longer borrow.

Virtually every sovereign nation in the world is over indebted with the United States leading the way. We’ve all seen the fiascos in Greece and Ireland and are awaiting the meltdowns in Italy, Spain and Portugal. While we may be familiar with the debt our federal government owes and what the implications are, we may not be aware of just how over leveraged other nations are.

ENDGAME examines the effect and impact of the present financial crisis on the world and the USA economy and examine what may happen when all these countries can no longer borrow.

Join us on Sunday, April 15th at 12:30 PM on KERA, Channel 13, Dallas

Clean Air and Climate Change Panelists Include:

• Cherelle Blazer: formerly with the Environmental Defense Fund, Executive Director of You Can’t live in the Woods
• Margaret Keliher: former Dallas County judge and Executive Director of Texas Business for Clean Air
• Tom “Smitty” Smith: Executive Director of Public Citizen Texas Office

Left to Right: Smitty Smith, Kelliher, Blazer

When looking at clean air and climate change, one of the challenges is fracking, a technology that has gained wide acceptance. Yet,   “Smitty” Smith is concerned with fracking as it consumes significant water. The methane emissions challenge that of coal, and exceed the compounds from all of our cars in the Metroplex!

Cherelle Blazer agrees that although fracking would normally be a viable possibility, the methane emissions are a number one concern.  There is danger due to explosions, and chemical concerns such as benzene. It is critical; she says that we make production cleaner, now that this technology is being used right in our own back yards.

The air we breathe and our possible effect on climate change must be considered in the debate over energy choices. There are risks involved with the rewards of more and better energy sources. Those risks are real and the role of public policy is to sort out how to understand, remove and mitigate those risks.

Margaret Keliher, whose experience pre-dates her involvement with Texas Business for Clean Air- when she was a Dallas County judge, believes that some of the concerns with drilling are caused by bad practices and mismanagement. “There is a balance we have to meet to drill responsibly and do the best we can for our citizens. The question is finding that balance.” She asserts, “What is usually good for business is also good for the government.”

Southwest Airlines is given as an example. To cut fuel costs their studies analyzed time spent taxiing, and airplanes and trucks idling.  They made changes and were able to cut their costs as well as improve air quality.

Daniel Yergin, author of The Quest, interviewed previously in the energy series, joins in by tape, addressing some of the concerns we had up until 2008 when the US was challenged with peak gas- and importing enough for our consumption may have cost us $100 billion a year to import. We discovered gas trapped in shale rock could be accessed.  By 2008 hydraulic fracking was recognized as a viable technology.  Still there are issues with air quality and the water produced, and these can be managed with best practices. We must also consider costs as well as regulation- should this technology be regulated by the Fed or State, he asks?

The air we breathe and the effect on climate change must be considered in the debate over energy choices. There are risks involved along with the rewards of better energy sources. What with technology now in our own back yards these risks are very real. We need citizen involvement and awareness as well as public policy that can sort out how to understand, remove and mitigate these risks.

Niki Nicastro McCuistion
Executive producer/ producer
Business performance consultant and coach
nikin@nikimccuistion.com
214-750-5157

***

1922 – 03.11.2012

Panelists Include:

• Bernard L. Weinstein, PhD – Associate Director at Maguire Energy Institute and Adjunct Professor of Economics, Cox School of Business, Southern Methodist University
• Russel E. Smith – Executive Director of Renewable Energy Industries Association
• John Losinger – Principal at Public Strategies, Inc.

John Losinger takes a look at the 50,000 feet view.

Left to Right: Losinger, Smith, Weinstein

Russel Smith came to be interested in fossil fuel as a result of a family member’s bout with a fossil fuel related illness. He believes we need to make more of a distinction between finite and infinite renewables – and whether they can renew themselves or have

they been sequestered for millions of years.

Russel Smith talks about the 5 areas of renewables:  Solar, biomass, geothermal, wind and hydrokinetic.  He asserts that we need to look at both fossil fuel as well as nuclear resources as part of the mix. He agrees with Losinger that diversity of renewables is critical and better for our survival for the long haul – not just the short term.

John Losinger believes diversity of renewable energy plays a very important role, and our ability to adapt to prices and weather. New technologies can help boost the process and make for larger portfolios of choice.

Dr. Weinstein mentions his drive across West Texas and the miles of windmills with none turning. Renewables, efficiencies and conservation, all important but our present administration ignores fossil fuels- and renewables alone can’t solve the problem. Plus the cost of heavy subsidies can’t continue- in 2010 these subsidies equaled $7 billion dollars.

For many years now there has been a push for so-called renewable sources of energy to replace fossil fuels. Solar, wind and other options are being tried with varying degrees of success as they are not constant, yet research is progressing. We need to combine renewables, clean coal and natural gas and broaden our base. The promise of renewable energy from solar, wind and other sources has been something that most Americans believe in.

And there is good news and hope for a move to ever more sources of energy other than fossil fuels. Yet, the public policy issues, the tax issues, the special interest issues remain. As with most of the topics we address, technology can play a large part, so keeping current on the power, money and environmental issues relating to this topic are important.

***

03.04.2012 – 1921