Investing in Our Nation's Infrastructure

“When you don’t invest in infrastructure, you are going to pay sooner or later…”[1]

All Americans should support restricting the spending of Social Security surplus to efforts that help strengthen the program’s long term solvency.

Both Bill Clinton and Al Gore advocated placing Social Security surplus funds in a “lock box.”

State and local elected officials as well as engineers and construction contractors should immediately begin advocating that a reasonable percentage of Social Security surplus funds be invested in state and municipal infrastructure (drinking water, wastewater and drainage) bonds. State and Municipal bonds are generally a very safe and prudent investment.

In 2005, the American Society of Civil Engineers reported that states and cities needed approximately $32 billion a year in additional funding to meet all of their drinking water, wastewater and nonfederal dams infrastructure needs for the next twelve to twenty years (2005-2017/2025). That’s a total of $384 to $640 billion.[2]

During the next ten years, the Social Security surplus is projected to be approximately $1 trillion.
Investing Social Security surplus funds in state and municipal bonds would help maintain, rebuild and expand our nation’s infrastructure while generating regular interest payments to the Social Security Trust Fund to help strengthen its long term solvency. It would also help create jobs, stimulate the economy and free up private sector capital that would have been spent on state and municipal bonds to be invested in corporate bonds and equities and T-Bills. Increased investments in the private sector would also help strengthen and grow the economy.

Economists estimate that 40,000 jobs are created for every $1 billion spent on transportation construction projects. The rate for non-transportation infrastructure projects is probably also somewhere in that “neighborhood”. Assuming 30,000 jobs for each billion spent on infrastructure projects, investing $100 billion a year during each of the next ten years in additional state and municipal infrastructure funding should result in the creation and maintenance of at least one hundred thousand jobs across America.

Allowing Social Security surplus funds to be invested in state and municipal bonds would be good for the Social Security Trust Fund, our nation’s long term economic strength and growth, and maintaining, rebuilding and expanding our nation’s infrastructure.

This is a win-win idea.
[1] Jim Drinkard, Senate passes $10.5 billion aid package, USA TODAY, September 2, 2005, pg. 6A (quoting Mike Parker, former Assistant Secretary of the Army for civil works and a former Mississippi Congressman).
[2] American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) 2005 Report Card for America’s Infrastructure, www.asce.org.

Adding to the Civil Rights Agenda

If Civil Rights leaders are serious about empowering African-Americans politically, economically, and socially then there are three items that should be added to the national civil rights action agenda. They are needed to help expand and enhance representative democracy. They will also help increase voter turnout and African-American political influence and power.

The first thing that needs to be done is to eliminate “safe” partisan legislative and congressional districts in order to stop excessive partisan political gerrymandering. New districts in which the partisan identification of voters is as equally divided as possible between the two major political parties should replace the old partisan districts. The new districts should be drawn consistent with the Voting Rights Act and protecting communities of interest.

Second, state legislators (Legislatures) in the forty-eight states that award electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis should be lobbied to replace that system. The states should award electoral votes based on which presidential candidate wins a congressional district in combination with the statewide result,[1] or on a proportional basis based on the percentage of the statewide vote each candidate receives.[2]

Finally, Congress and the states should be lobbied to create election lotteries at the state and national level. Each cycle, voters would have a chance to win millions of dollars based on the number on their voting receipt. [3] Private donations should be used to fund and endow these lotteries. [4]

If these three ideas are implemented, they will increase voter turnout among all Americans, eliminate partisan political gerrymandering and in a presidential election year, make every state a purple battleground state. All together, the three ideas would help improve representative democracy.[5]


[1] This is known as the districting model and is currently being used by Maine and Nebraska.
[2] This was the model proposed by Colorado Amendment 36 that was defeated at the polls in the November 2004
election. Mitch Frank, The Florida of 2004?, Time, October 18, 2004, pg. 49; and H.W. Brands, Deadlocked
democracy: What would Teddy do?, Houston Chronicle, October 24, 2004, pg. E6.
[3] Matt Miller, Rock the Vote and Win $10 Million!, Fortune, November 1, 2004, pg. 56.
[4] During the 2004 campaign cycle, both political parties and 527 groups combined spent over a billion dollars. Ten
percent of this total for election lotteries would be an endowment of over $100 million dollars. John Frank, GOP
527s finished campaign strong, Houston Chronicle, November 6, 2004, pg. A5.
[5] David S. Broder, Can’t Blame Bush or Kerry for the state of elections, Houston Chronicle, October 31, 2004, pg.
E4.

Here Is What Is Likely To Come

WARNING
You may not want to hear what you are about to read, but if you can rise above partisan and ideological predilections, you will find some food for thought.

Introduction
The following is what I believe, based on current and past events, will be the reality that, we as a nation will have to deal with in the coming years regardless of who is elected President of the United States in 2008. Some will say that my expectations are an overly pessimistic outlook. To me, however, they represent a reflection of the old adage, “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.”

The Future?
No matter what the next President does about American troops in Iraq, there will be no peace or stability in that nation for decades to come, even if then. It is highly likely (probably as opposed to possibly) that circumstances will force the next President to make a tough decision about leaving or returning American troops to Iraq.

If I could tell you now what will precipitate that conundrum, I would, but it will probably involve some combination of oil, terrorism, Iran, an attack on Israel or an overthrow of the Saudi Royal family by Islamic extremists.

The divisive fight over ending the war in Iraq (bringing our troops home) has sapped the American people of our collective willingness to use military force again anytime soon, unless, I believe, it is in response to another direct attack on American soil or a direct attack against the President, vice President or some other high ranking elected official or former President. Even if one of these incidents were to occur, if trust in the Presidency and a belief in the objectivity and competency of Congress in the area of foreign affairs are not restored, a call for the use of military force in the aftermath of another attack could result in more division in our nation than even what occured because of the Vietnam War. ( I am not taking a position on whether this is good or bad, or right or wrong at this time. All I am doing is telling you what I think the mood of the country is and will be for some time to come.)

This fatigue will seriously limit the options of the next President to respond to foreign crises. The next President may speak softly but he or she won’t be carrying a “big stick” as in years past, even if the size of the U.S. military is increased.

The next President of the United States is not going to send large numbers of American troops to Darfur or to intervene in any other humanitarian crisis on the continent of Africa or any place else around the world. (I hope I am proven wrong by the next President as it concerns this observation.)

Diplomacy (soft power) is not going to keep Iran from building a nuclear bomb. They will continue to say they won’t, but they will do it, and as a nation we are not going to be willing to use military force to stop them from doing it, and ultimately, neither will the Europeans, and that is why Iran will have a nuclear bomb. (If you don’t believe that Iran will lie about its ambition to build a nuclear bomb, just remember North Korea.)

There will not be peace or stability in the Middle East even if a Palestinian state is created. The sad truth is that a vocal, violent and active minority of Arabs in the Middle East will accept nothing less than the total annilation of Israel. Even if that occurred, which it will not, radical Islamic extremists who are opposed to Western society (culture) will not stop their terrorist attacks against the “West” (“Old Europe” and America and its other allies). (Europeans may dislike President Bush (II) but the terrorists don’t care.)

The price of a barrel of oil and a gallon of gas at the pump is going to continue increasing because of instability in the Middle East and in the oil producing countries on the continent of Africa. The leadership in Latin America, Mexico, China and Russia will also have a significant impact on the future price of oil and gas. The way it looks right now, it will be an impact that forces prices higher for their own economic benefit, and for some of them, to do harm to the American economy.

Americans must achieve a significant degree of energy independence within the next five (5) to ten (10) years. If we don’t our economy and a large part of the global economy will be destabilized because of the high price of crude oil resulting from instability in the oil fields of the Middle East and those on the continent of Africa as well as the actions of China and Russia.

The forces of instability in the Middle East and on the African continent are more likely to deal with China and Russia than the United States, if they were to succeed in seizing political power or in capturing operational control of the oil and gas fields and their production facilities.

Russia will continue to grow more provocative, confrontational and dangerous. Russia and Iran are going to become more of a threat to the national security interests of the United States than North Korea is now. (Russia has more nuclear weapons, an inferiority complex from having lost the Cold War and its superpower status (empire), and has control of oil and natural gas resources. Iran will have nuclear weapons and have dreams of Middle East hegemony.)

America will be susceptible to economic blackmail from the foreign nations that own the largest share of our national debt (Treasury Bills) unless we move beyond the stale partisan political debate of “tax cuts” versus “tax and spending”. To protect our economy and national security, the next Congress and President must put a plan in place to balance the federal budget, reduce the national debt by at least twenty-five percent (25%) and reduce our trade deficit within the next five (5) years.

This has to be done in a way that will not cause an economic recession. It can be done but it will require radically reforming the tax code by eliminating loopholes and making it fairer and simpler while prioritizing government spending. The Alternative Minimum Tax will have to be reformed or eliminated. Policies will have to be put in place to eliminate the wealth gap, income inequality, and allow all Americans to receive a quality education from pre-kindergarten to college and on to graduate or professional school.

Conclusion
No one can predict the future, but we all have to plan for tomorrow. let’s “hope for the best, but plan for the worst.” Even if the glass is half full, it is not a full glass of water so we need to get moving and making sure that we can keep the American glass at least half full and control our own destiny when it comes to where and how we get our “water.” If we act wisely, we won't have to worry about who moved our “cheese”.

I Am Asking Metro Board Not To Be "Penny Wise But Pound Foolish,"

My remarks this morning are my own personal views based on my experience as the former Chairman of the City of Houston’s Transportation, Technology and Infrastructure Committee, my support of public transit and what I believe is in the short and long term best interest of all Houstonians and residents of the METRO service area.

Today, I am asking METRO Board not to be “penny wise but pound foolish.”

This morning, I want to begin with the end. Failure to connect the University Line East of Main Street to the Eastwood Transit Center NOW, is a disservice to those who are transit dependent as well as to those who are willing to use public transit as an alternative mode of transportation. The primary goal of the system is supposed to be improved mobility and that comes from greater connectivity.

Failure to connect the University Line to the Eastwood Transit Center would be a missed opportunity to connect two historic communities. It would also mean:

(a) Loss of ridership.

(b) Making it more time consuming for East End residents to get to Uptown, Greenway Plaza, the Galleria area and out to Southwest Houston by rail.

(c) Losing an opportunity to make it easier for East End residents to get to two of Houston’s citywide assets, Texas Southern University (TSU) and the University of Houston Central Campus (U of H). (It is also a lost opportunity to make it easier for Third Ward and Southeast residents to get to the East End.)

(d) Losing an opportunity to connect to existing commuter transit from Clear Lake and increasing the cost of a future connection with commuter rail service to NASA and Galveston.

Additionally, putting the University Line on Alabama dead ending into Scott Street will cause the Southeast Line station on Scott Street to move further away from the TSU campus and it will also have a negative impact on the Cuney Homes.

The Wheeler or Alabama to Ennis to Elgin option is the best route if takings for on street parking next to rail stations are eliminated and a residential parking permit system is implemented as has been done in other areas of the City.

Taking Ennis to Elgin will take passenger rail into the heart of Northern Third Ward which will help make Project Row Houses more accessible and a bigger tourist attraction as well as assist the OST/Almeda TIRZ with its planned economic revitalization of Northern Third Ward and Dowling Street.

A lot of us have fought for a passenger rail system in Houston; and that is what we want, a connected whole that is a system.

To paraphrase another old adage, an ounce of connectivity now, is worth a pound of connectivity later. Thank you.

HOUSTON CITIZENS' CHAMBER OF COMMERCE ENDORSES HISD BOND PACKAGE

Recently, the Board of Directors of the Houston Citizens' Chamber of Commerce voted to endorse Houstonians VOTING FOR the HISD BOND package as modified by the commitments made by HISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra.

The Superintendent has agreed to shared access to economic opportunities for all Houston business owners and entrepreneurs; including more community members on the HISD Bond Oversight Committee and making it more involved in keeping the community informed on Bond related issues.

Forming a Community Advisory Council to work with him and the Board of Trustees, to improve academic programs in all HISD schools across the district; and, hiring a Houston-based accounting and auditing firm to review the recommendations on consolidating schools and reporting back to the Superintendent and the HISD Board on whether those recommendations should be implemented.

The Board’s decision to endorse (support) the HISD BOND package was also based on the need to continue improving HISD’s school buildings to make them safe and healthy for children, teachers and staff members.

The Houston Citizens' Chamber of Commerce is the oldest African-American Chamber of Commerce in Houston, founded in 1935.

The Board of Directors of the Houston Citizens' Chamber of Commerce is committed to holding Superintendent Saavedra to his commitments by working with him and HISD’s Trustees; the people’s elected fiduciary representatives who are legally and politically responsible for making HISD work for the children of our City.

*Carroll G. Robinson, Chairman of the Board of Directors, Houston Citizens Chamber
of Commerce (carroll-robinson@sbcglobal.net)

ARE THE VOTING RIGHTS OF HOUSTONIANS BEING VIOLATED?

There is an old saying that “the past is prologue”. What has happened in the past is likely to happen again because most people don’t remember what happened in the past.

During the 1970’s, the City of Houston was sued because its all At-Large city council election system violated the voting rights of African-American and Hispanic Houstonians. To settle the lawsuit, the City agreed to go to a “mixed”system of single member city council districts and At-Large city council seats.

As a part of the settlement of the voting rights violation lawsuit, a provision was added to the Houston City Charter in 1979 (Article V, Section 2) that required the city to add two new District Council seats when its population reached 2.1 million people.

The 1979 City Charter provision also states:
In each year during which a City General Election is to be held, the City Council shall conduct an investigation and determine the population of each of the districts from which District Council Members are to be elected. Each such determination shall be based upon the best available data, including but not limited to, the most recent federal census.

On February 13, 2007, the Planning Director of the City of Houston sent Mayor Bill White a memo that said the city’s population exceeded 2.1 million (was 2,231,339) based on her office’s estimate using the same process used by the U.S. Census Bureau.

Notwithstanding the Planning Department’s determination that the city’s population has exceeded 2.1 million people, Mayor White has refused to allow City Council members to comply with the 1979 City Charter provision to add two new District City Council seats for this year’s city election. Mayor White has said that he will not begin preparations to comply with the 1979 City Charter provision until 2010. (Mayor White will leave office in the first week of January 2010 because of the City’s term limit requirement.)That means that the voting rights of African-Americans, Hispanic and Asian American Houstonians will be violated by the City for four years (2008-2011) unnecessarily.

Mayor White is refusing to comply with the 1979 City Charter provision based solely on the opinion of the City Attorney as opposed to a decision from the Civil Rights Division of the United States Justice Department or a specific determination from a federal court that the 1979 City Charter requirement violates the federal Voting Rights Act. Neither the Justice Department nor the United States Supreme Court has ever said that the 1979 City Charter provision requiring the creation of two new District City Council seats was illegal.

Instead of fighting to protect the voting rights of all Houstonians, the City of Houston is once again undercutting the voting rights of African-American, Hispanic and Asian Houstonians. Combined, Hispanics, African-Americans, Asians and other people of color are now 69% of the total population of Houston. The 1979 City Charter provision was specifically added to the Charter in anticipation of this growth. It was intended to comply with the United States Supreme Court’s decision in Baker v. Carr and the Federal Voting Rights Act. Both protect minority voters against the dilution of their voting strength.

By refusing to add the two new District City Council seats, the city is diluting the voting strength of minority voters in Houston.

Instead of refusing to comply with the 1979 City Charter provision based solely on the opinion of the City Attorney, Mayor White and the City Council should seek an opinion from the Civil Rights Division of the Justice Department or the federal District Court in Washington, D.C. as to its legality.

On an issue as fundamentally important as protecting the Voting Rights of Houstonians, Mayor White and City Council should do more than simply rely on an opinion from the City Attorney. They should go the extra mile to protect the voting rights of all Houstonians.

Robinson is Associate Dean of External Affairs and an Assistant Professor at Texas Southern University’s Barbara Jordan-Mickey Leland School of Public Affairs. He has taught Constitutional Law at the South Texas College of Law. He is a former At-Large member of the Houston City Council.

Will Minority Owned Businesses and Entrepreneurs Benefit Financially from the HISD Bond Proposal?

During the past several weeks, there has been growing community opposition to Houston Independent School District’s current $805 million dollar bond proposal. Resistence to the bond proposal has primarily been based on HISD’s lack of broad based community consultation prior to structuring the bond package as it relates to school closures, consolidation, repair and the construction of new K-8 grade schools.

Even after HISD Superintendent Abe Saavedra made some changes in the bond package, community opposition has still not ended.

For the Houston Citizens’ Chamber of Commerce, HISD’s bond proposal is both an education improvement and economic opportunity package.

In addition to the concerns expressed by the community over consultation, school closures, consolidation, repair and new construction, the Houston Citizens’ Chamber of Commerce is also concerned about how fairly bond funds will be spent.

We would like to hear specific details from HISD on how much money from its two prior bond packages (1998 and 2002) has been spent with Houston based African-American, Hispanic, Asian and women owned businesses and entrepreneurs.

What are the District’s plans and procedures for ensuring that all qualified local businesses will have a fair chance of doing business with the District if the newest bond proposal is approved by the voters? How will the District make sure that those who receive a contract are treated fairly and paid on time?

An outstanding education system is one of the cornerstones to the long term strength and prosperity of our City, but so too is shared prosperity.

This issue of equal access to economic opportunities to ensure shared prosperity throughout our community must not just be a part of the conversation about the HISD bond proposal, but all the conversations in corporate board rooms and executive suites in the public, private and non-profit sectors across our region. Economic inclusion is the key to our community’s and nation’s long term success in this new century.