Former White House Budget Director Peter Orszag accepts vice-chair position at CitiGroup Inc.

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

Courtesy of garyvarvel.com

Tuesday, 12/14/10

A business environment void of ethics and moral character tends to allow questionable motives and happenings to easily drift by unnoticed.  As for the philosophies of Yin and Yang, light versus dark, and the eternal struggle of good and evil, I understand there is an idealistic balance to everything in our surroundings.

There are good businessmen and there are also bad businessmen.  Not knowing Mr. Peter Orzag personally, I will give him the benefit of the doubt and hope he falls into the “good” category.  With this being said, the decision Mr. Orszag has made to accept the position of vice-chairman of Citigroup’s investment banking division, I believe, was made with little concern for the practical minded American tax payers who would tend to view the move as a conflict of interest or at least a reversal of that concept.

Peter R. Orszag, an economist who served under the Bush administration as the director of the Congressional Budget Office from 2007-08, was nominated by President Obama in 2008 to serve as director of the Office of Management and Budget.  Orszag was reluctant to accept the position and emphasized he would only hold the position for two years, common practice for most budget directors.  The duties of the OMB are to craft our federal budget and to oversee the effectiveness of federal programs.

What a busy two years they would turn out to be.  Ironically, Mr. Orszag’s first assignment as the new budget director was to greatly add to our nation’s deficit, $1.3 trillion for the fiscal year at the time, by contributing to the construction and design of a $787 billion dollar two-year stimulus package.

Among US banks, Citigroup, Inc. received the largest amount of tax payer dollars during the numerous bailouts that were facilitated during our nation’s financial crisis.  That is of course, assuming the crisis has passed.  Citigroup received $45 billion in the corporate bailouts of 2008, repaying $20 billion last year and converting the remainder into stock.

With Citigroup being the recipient of the largest amount of tax payer dollars during a bailout constructed by the exact same person whom has recently accepted a high ranking role in their future business practices, I am reminded of Shakespeare’s’ “Hamlet” and Marcellus’ foreshadowing quote, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.”  The fish, our government, maybe rotting from the head down and all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy.  Denmark is “an unweeded garden” of “things rank and gross in nature” (Act 1, scene 2).

Maybe Peter Orszag’s decision to accept such a presumably high paying position at Citygroup was merely a simple coincidence.  See, I can be rational and non-judgmental.  Unfortunately I must return to reality and comprehend the fact; Peter Orszag’s position as director of Management and budget was filled by Jacob Lew, whom worked for Citigroup from 2006 to 2009.  I smell fish once more.  I’m afraid it seems the state of Denmark isn’t the only place suffering from a rotten smell these days.

In my need for bureaucratic coddling, Citigroup’s sarcastic procedural humor offered me this small sense of comfort.  According to Bloomberg.com, John Havens, chief executive officer of Citigroup’s institutional client group, stated December 9^th, to comply with “applicable ethics rules,” Orszag’s work at Citigroup won’t involve contact with U.S. federal government officials.

With big business politicians now climbing out of the woodwork attempting to legislatively privatize our nation’s health care, our nation’s school system, and our social security program; what is keeping them or who is to say they haven’t already privatized our White House and the governmental body it was constructed to uphold?  Also, I am forced to ponder; being only 30 years of age, am I on my way to becoming a non-social security receiving curmudgeon? 

For those of you whom are new to the “Rotten in Denmark” quote, here is a summary of its concept.

Courtesy of www.enotes.com

Horatio:  He waxes desperate with imagination.

Marcellus:  Let’s follow. ‘Tis not fit thus to obey him.

Horatio:  Have after. To what issue will this come?

Marcellus:  Something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Horatio:  Heaven will direct it.

Marcellus:  Nay, let’s follow him. [Exeunt.]

 Hamlet Act 1, scene 4, 87–91

This is one time when the popular misquotation—”Something’s rotten in Denmark”—is a real improvement on the original. But you ought to be careful around purists, who will also remember that the minor character Marcellus, and not Hamlet, is the one who coins the phrase. There’s a reason he says “state of Denmark” rather than just Denmark: the fish is rotting from the head down—all is not well at the top of the political hierarchy.

 There have been some hair-raising goings-on outside the castle at Elsinore. As the terrified Horatio and Marcellus look on, the ghost of the recently deceased king appears to Prince Hamlet. The spirit beckons Hamlet offstage, and the frenzied prince follows after, ordering the witnesses to stay put. They quickly decide to tag along anyway—it’s not “fit” to obey someone who is in such a desperate state. In this confused exchange, Marcellus’s famous non sequitur sustains the foreboding mood of the disjointed and mysterious action. And it reinforces the point and tone of some of Hamlet’s earlier remarks—for example, that Denmark is “an unweeded garden” of “things rank and gross in nature” (Act 1, scene 2). When his father’s ghost tells him his chilling tale in scene 5, the prince will realize just how rotten things really are in Denmark.

New Health Care law deemed unconstitutional by Va. federal Judge

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

Tuesday, 12/14/10

A Virginia federal judge has declared the individual mandate requiring Americans to buy health insurance, included in the health-reform law, unconstitutional.  Today’s federal ruling stands out from the 15 previous cases to be held against our country’s new reform law,  in that it is the first federal ruling to strike down any part of the new law which will be implemented in 2014.

District judge Henry Hudson, appointed by Bush, found that the recently passed law’s mandate, forcing Americans to purchase health care, “exceeds the constitutional boundaries of congressional power”.  The republican Virginia Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli, whom filed the suit, has launched a PR campaign to gain donations and petitioners to challenge the law even further.

Judge Hudson’s did however rule that the law be allowed to live while other federal appeals are heard.   Since this case is the health-reform law’s first federal challenge, the case will now most likely approach the Supreme Court.  Judge Hudson stated in his ruling, “The final word will undoubtedly reside with a higher court. In this Court’s view, the award of declaratory judgment is sufficient to stay the hand of the executive branch pending appellate review.”

Virginians will not be required to adhere to the mandated insurance purchases the law requires, due to the fact Virginia was the first state to pass a law barring the law’s insurance mandate.

Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli’s task is to now convince the Department of Justice to “speed-up” the case’s arrival to the Supreme Court steps, accelerating the 4^th Circuit Court of Appeals or skipping the process altogether.

With that being said, Dept. of Justice spokeswoman Tracy Schmaler was quoted as saying, “We are disappointed in today’s ruling but continue to believe – as other federal courts in Virginia and Michigan have found – that the Affordable Care Act is constitutional there is clear and well-established legal precedent that Congress acted within its constitutional authority in passing this law and we are confident that we will ultimately prevail.”

Future decisions are on the way from other federal courts.  This Thursday arguments will be heard for a Florida case challenging the law.

The President’s administration believes without a mandate a number of people, who would get coverage, would be cut in half and threaten the ban on denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions.

During the health care debates the Health Insurance Industry maintained that it needed the individual mandate–and the healthy people who would presumably buy insurance because of it–in order to be able to offer coverage for pre-existing conditions and to lift caps on lifetime limits.

White House officials believe the higher courts will hold the issue as constitutional in any ultimate decision, even though they may lose a number of the 20 federal suits still in process.

Putin challenges Obama for title of “Coolest President” while performing Fats Domino’s “Blueberry Hill”

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

ShooBe DooBe DooSki

Monday 12/13/10

Over the weekend the audience of a St. Petersburg, Russia children’s charity dinner enjoyed a live musical performance by Russia’s former President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin.  This artistic gesture differs from the Prime Minister’s usual photo-ops including shirtless horseback riding, tiger stalking, Formula One race car driving, and judo fighting (he holds a black belt).

After a few words of encouragement from the event’s emcee, requesting Putin’s participation in the evening’s musical offerings, Putin stated, “Like an overwhelming majority of people, I can neither sing nor play but I very much like doing it,” according to Reuters.

Putin then approached the grand piano located on the stage.  The audience, including American delegates Sharon Stone, Kevin Costner, Goldie Hawn, and Kurt Russell, watched as Putin played a gentle, beginner’s level, instrumental version of Fats Domino’s massively popular song “Blue Berry Hill”.  Once his rendition of the immortal song was concluded, the former President rose from the piano’s chair and with the swagger of a semi-confident “everyday Joe”, Putin walked towards a lone-standing microphone located at the stage’s center.

The band struck a tune and launched into a melodic version of the song with Prime Minister Putin providing the lead vocals.  From a review of the video footage, one is forced to conclude that Vladimir Putin is no Frank Sinatra or even a Sanjaya Malakar, but the artistic effort and risk of self-esteem involved proves sincere and appreciable when recognizing this event’s purpose was conducted for a children’s charity.

The Prime Minister’s spokesman said Putin learned the lyrics to the song in his English class and takes music lessons when he has time.

I can honestly say I’d donate some serious coin to view President Obama’s musical performance of Earth, Wind, & Fire’s “After the Love is Gone” (footage offered below).  To be entirely honest, I believe every incoming President should be, by law, required to participate in at least one publicly performed musical number during their term.  By doing this, the people are able to determine their leaders amount of “cool” i.e. Bill Clinton’s well-received saxophone recital on the hugely popular and former television forum “The Arsenio Hall Show” (R.I.P. 1989 -1994).

Politics aside, it was a nice gesture and Putin’s performance required a certain amount of gumption, in which he has tons, I stress the term “politics aside”.

Russia’s Got Talent

Earth, Wind, & Fire “After the Love is Gone”

Houston, There’s Something in the water. No Seriously, There’s Radiation in your Tap Water

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

Recent picture of a Houstonion who chose to swallow the tap water while bathing and brushing his teeth.

Houston, Texas, has the esteemed pleasure of being the 4^th largest city in the United States.  Unfortunately, Houston now holds the shame of being the only major Texas City to reveal levels of radioactive elements such as uranium and radium in its drinking water.  I have recently learned hundreds of water companies along our Gulf Cost pump water that contains some form of radiation.  The problem with Texas; Water tests all across the state have shown dangerous levels of uranium and radium are not considered “normal water radiation”.   These Alpha Particles, referred to by scientists, found in uranium and radium are extremely dangerous if ingested and introduced to human organs. These radioactive particles go even further, once digested, to attack the human body’s DNA structure.

According to David Ozonoff, Expert of Drinking Water & Health at Boston University, “The Alpha Particle is the 800lb gorilla of radioactive particles.  Once Alpha Particles meet with your body’s cells, these cells can inhibit and promote cancers within one’s body.”  If you are in need of a second opinion, I’ll offer you a statement released by our nation’s Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).  “… a single alpha passing through a cell is sufficient to induce a mutational event.”

Once Houston’s channel KHOU 11’s news team launched an investigation into the state’s water testing results, some residents were sent a letter “some-what” explaining the situation with a bold print that read, “THIS IS NOT AN EMERGENCY”.  Homeowners and tax payers supplied with this radioactive water would beg to differ. 

Texas’ drinking water tests in Harris County Municipal Utility District #105 in 2008 and 2009 revealed Alpha Particle contamination of drinking water at levels that exceeded the Environmental protection Agency’s legal limit.  Other state tests have exhibited Alpha Particle levels in drinking water in other districts such Harris County Municipal Utility Districts 238, 105, 23, the city of Katy, and others. 

One local water system, the Suburban Mobile Home Park 2, continued to violate federal legal limits for Alpha Radiation in 2003, 2004 and 2005. The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality, who holds the power to govern a compliance with federal regulations, allowed the drinking water to continue to flow out of Texas resident’s tap for years, even though the mobile home park consistently provided test results containing extremely high readings for alpha-particle activity and uranium.  I use the term “extremely high” due to the fact the EPA, back in 2000, set a “zero-threshold” allowance for radionuclides or the MCLG (Maximum Containment Limit Goal).  Common potential contaminates in drinking water such as copper, selenium, barium, chlorine residuals, trihalomethanes, and many others pose less of a threat and are not radioactive, and thus they have goals set above zero.

Is Houston’s large and overwhelming expansive territory the cause for this radioactive dilemma?  Any progressive big city is going to run into these kinds of problems at some point, right?  I mean, other cities whom compare with Houston, in general size and population, probably have this same problem also, right?  WRONG…  New York, Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, Corpus Christie, San Francisco, Boston, Seattle, New Orleans, Portland all have no known amounts of Alpha Radiation in 2009.  Although, Los Angeles, Chicago, Las Vegas, Denver, and Phoenix were cited as having some amounts of Alpha Radiation above the levels the EPA recognizes, there is still little comfort within this controversial subject for Houston.  A national science-based, public-interest organization, The Environmental Working Group, recently studied the water quality of 100 major cities in the United States.  Houston can be found at the bottom of the list, ranked 95^th out of 100, garnering the label of one of the “Lowest Rated Utilities” in America by EWG.  The EWG cited radioactive particle levels as the primary reason for Houston’s low ranking.

Let it also be stated, the city of Houston’s head offices have long been aware of this problem and the information currently being disclosed.  The data and test results that have come to light have only become public knowledge due to the Houston’s KHOU investigators diligence and commitment to gaining information on this crisis.  In response to KHOU’s inquiries, city spokesperson Alvin Wright released a written statement claiming “we have not detected… any reason for concern based on the levels detected.”  The results of the state drinking water tests, their corresponding municipal districts, and past federal level violations were only made public following KHOU’s filing of a request for information using the Texas Public Information Act. 

Please allow me to share the following with you.  If you ever find yourself in an America whose state or federal government is planning to repeal its form of the Information Act; you should use that as your cue to “exit left stage-even” (in a SnagglePuss voice, i.e. Hanna Barbara reference).

The very person in charge of overseeing water safety and supply for the entire state of Texas for the Texas Commission on Environmental Quality or TCEQ stated on record, the chances of Houston residents being affected by cancer due to the radioactive particles is unlikely due to the fact these alpha particles are a naturally occurring element. 

I am no Rocket Scientist, but I do however hold a Master’s degree from the University of Common Sense.  I must stop time and speak to you on a personal level because there are forces of ignorance that are beginning to harm the general well-being of decent and moral people like you and I.  Telling the American citizen to not fear a radioactive matter because it is a natural occurrence is tantamount to instructing your child to lock into an “eye-stare”  with an approaching grizzly bear because that’s how you stand your ground and show ‘em who’s boss.  End result, your child is eaten and you should be brought up on charges of child endangerment immediately following the funeral.  This “natural occurrence” argument is something you will repeatedly hear in our government’s, both state and federal, climate control and global warming debates.  Case and point, in response the question of whether or not to reduce our country’s carbon dioxide emissions in order to conserve our planet’s atmosphere, Congressman John Shimkus (R-IL) chose to answer in the form of a question.  The distinguished Congressman stated, “So if we decrease the use of carbon dioxide, are we not taking away plant food from the atmosphere?”   Point made and case closed.  I am no Mr. Wizard, but I am sharp enough to be aware of the existence of Radon.  Any of you who were born or lived in our country’s east coast area will be familiar with Radon also.  Radon is a radioactive, colorless, odorless, tasteless noble gas.  Radon occurs naturally and also, coincidentally, is the decay product of uranium.  Epidemiological evidence shows a clear link between breathing high concentrations of radon and incidence of lung cancer.   According to the United States Environmental Protection Agency, radon is the second most frequent cause of lung cancer.  Natural radon can be found in high levels in the state of Iowa and in the Appalachian Mountain areas in southeastern Pennsylvania.  Many cities within the state of Iowa have passed requirements for radon-resistant construction for new homes.  Homes in these regions are even tested for radon prior to purchase, in fear of the federal and state recognized health risks involved with this “naturally occurring gas”. 

The American people are not as daft and dumb as some in power chose to believe.  In the year 2010, 2011, and the years to come, it is no longer sufficient to spurt out some “talking point” or “a failure to comment”.  If the very person supposedly in charge of our state water’s safety and supply is aloof to the concepts of water contamination and supply then I deem her un-fit to perform her duties.  She is either ill-informed or is lacking in continuing education courses for the very job she has been asked to do.  If she is unable to carry out her duties then she should be replaced by another woman, man, child, or ferret that holds the mental capacity and moral ethics one needs in order to be sucessfull in such a position.  I am choosing not to divulge her name in hopes that she can have a fair chance to develope some sense of self-accountability and moral character before the phones begin to ring.  If my callous assumption of her character is not correct, I can only come to the dreadful conclusion that she, in charge of Texas’ Drinking Water Safety and Supply, and the body whom appointed her to that position, the Texas Committee of Environmental Quality; I can only surmise the simple fact that, like so many others in a position of power and responsibility, they are either afraid of the solution or just simply don’t care.  I tell you here and now with the utmost sincerity, I am no cynical pessimist; but I must regrettably believe the latter to be true.

In closing I leave you with this list of radioactive contamination solutions courtesy of Houston’s KHOU 11 New Staff.

The City of Houston provided the following list of practical engineering measures that can be implemented to reduce or diminish our water’s radiation contamination levels.  The City of Houston also informed KHOU that none of these solutions are currently in place at any locations around Houston.

Treatment technologies for Removing Radionuclides from Drinking Water

(as provided by the City of Houston to KHOU)

Most of these are on EPA’s list of Best Available Technologies for compliance with the Radionuclides Rule.

* Ion exchange (for removal of uranium, radium, and polonium)

*Reverse osmosis (for removal of uranium, thorium, radium, and polonium)

*Lime softening (for removal of hardness, radium, and uranium)

*Green sand filtration (for removal of radium)

*Co-precipitation with barium sulfate (for removal of radium)

*Air stripping (for removal of radon)

*Granular activated carbon (for removal of radon, uranium, radium, lead, and polonium)

*Electrodialysis/electrodialysis reversal

*Pre-formed hydrous manganese oxide filtration (for iron, manganese, and radium)

*Activated alumina

* Enhanced coagulation/filtration (for iron, uranium, and polonium)

* Nanofiltration (for removal of uranium, radium, lead, and polonium)

Obama Proposes Two-year Bush Tax Cut Extension.

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

He Demands like a ButterFly and Stings like a Bee

According to an unreliable source, today Bo the white house water dog was seen enjoying a doggy Christmas treat prepared by a white house chef.  In another building, not far from the white house, your United States congress and senate stand polarized and divided.

Our political process has been reduced to a daily reproduction of Broadway’s famous musical “West Side Story”.  I’ll let you decide who’s playing the role of Maria.  For those who are repulsed by musicals, I can compare the current political climate created by the republicans and democrats to something similar to a pep rally filled with rival gang members in attendance.  If that analogy holds negative connotations, I apologize; my intentions are only to express literary emotion.  I would have just compared them both to Zack Morris and A.C. Slater, but even Zack and Slater, at times, were able to find common ground and mutual respect for the greater good of Kelly Kapowski…  I digress.

The blue and red factions were divided into even more fractions and splinters with this week’s introduction of President Barack Obama’s plan for the two year extension of the Bush Tax Cuts.  While details of the plan echoed through the grapevine, democrats and republicans voiced their separate approvals and disapprovals.  Progressive democrats, whose hearts were ready for a no-go on the Tax Cuts, were outraged by the amount of compromise the Obama plan offered towards those in favor of a Bush Tax Cut extension.

Not satisfied by the compromise, some republicans believe the lowering of the estate tax, included in the deal, was not sufficient but took comfort in knowing, without the passage of “Obama’s Bush-Tax Deal”, the estate tax would be subject to a substantial increase under current law.  Seemingly satisfied and remaining en conclave, the republicans stand mute refusing to advertise or applaud President Obama’s voluntary gesture of diplomacy and bi-partisanship.

With news of the compromise spreading, the Democratic Party’s reaction, as a whole, remains a challenge to grasp.  Quick reacting progressives lashed out on the cable news airwaves.  The word filibuster roared from the mouth of independent Senator Bernie Sanders, who caucus’ with the democrats.  Sanders claimed the tax deal to be a moral outrage.

Some congressional democrats felt as if they had been left out of the process of forming “the deal”.  Other democrats could not fathom the idea of “giving-in” to an extension of tax cuts meant for the wealthiest of Americans in our present economy.  I can see and understand the logic that lies in that notion, but alas, I am not an elected congressman.  As the calm, cool, and collected republicans sat in their offices, in the hallways of our nation’s capital, the fabric of the Democratic Party was ripping at the seams.

Congressman Peter Welch of Vermont quickly produced letter documenting his disapproval of “the deal” citing it to be fiscally irresponsible.  The letter included 20 signatures of like-minded congressional representatives, presumably democrats.  Referring to the democratic caucus, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi stated, “So far the response has not been very good.  We have some unease.”  Translated from Speaker Pelosi’s calm demeanor, this of course means the proverbial political poo-poo has hit the fan.  Only the Democratic Party’s fan, the republican fan is doing just fine.

In the midst of all the political blowback, commentary, and billions of dollars of monetary figures being thrown into the conversation, one can find it a tough task to figure out the brass-tax of what is actually included in the Presidents “Tax Deal” that has caused such political turmoil.

• 56 Billion Dollars for Job-Less benefits (a 13 month extension)
• 300 Billion for Middle Class Tax Cuts (under $250,000)
• 130 Billion for Tax Cuts for the Rich & Wealthy including Estate Tax rate changes
• 120 Billion for Pay-Roll Tax Cut
• 40 Billion for Tax Extenders; (Earned Income Tax Credit, Education Tax Credits)
• An added but not definitely stated amount for a Tax Break to help businesses invest in 2011-2012

As democrats peruse and ponder over these figures they will slowly realize they find solace in the democratic areas of the deal and simply disagree with the republican areas of the deal.  Then these congressional democrats will wake and find themselves in a republican house majority.  I can sincerely state that I would have preferred these democrats to have figured this out somewhere around last November or even used the thought of losing their congressional majority as a motivation to have this important debate before the mid-term elections and not have saved it to be discussed at the end of the year while most of us Americans are already too busy giving our hard earned money, hand over fist, to our country’s major corporations in celebration of Jesus’ birth.  That is just politically inconsiderate.

There is good in this potential “Tax Deal” and also within its parameters there is bad.  Just like any potential bill being passed into law there is much room for debate.  Unfortunately our leaders have chosen to spend 2010 fighting not for the betterment of the common man and woman, but rather concentrating their energy on a battle for political party “lines in the sand” and waging ridiculously early bets on the 2012 elections.  In reality with only two political parties, whether republican or democrat, I’d say both their chances for re-election are great.

Unfortunately the truth is, everyone saw this coming from miles away months ago, at least everyone who holds public office in our nation’s capital.  No politician wanted to touch this subject before the mid-term elections.  Who would dare stand up and voice their sound and just moral and ethical beliefs in order to get elected?  The previous proposed rhetorical question is the definition of sarcasm.  I will remember 2010 as the year bureaucracy was finally mastered and was severely taken advantage of by both the republican and democratic parties.

The republicans in office used the American people’s system of government’s rules and procedures to scrutinize, downplay, downsize, hold-up, slow down, and reject any document or legislation that held the signature our duly elected president of these United States.  The democrats in office refused to bring action towards the very issues on which they had been elected to solve.  I am also inclined to mention the American voters gave democrats a house majority also, just in case they had trouble fighting for the well-being of the common man and woman.  The democrats “year of playing it safe” in order to stay in office backfired terribly.  The mid-term elections left their ranks broken and tattered.  Some democrats stand ready for action but most seem visually and physically exhausted from double-talk and double-play of 2010.  Whatever that means?

The Health care debate swallowed up the year’s political discourse.  That and of course the whole, “Barack Obama is a Socialist Hitler-like Dictator” stuff.  Combine that with mid-term elections and you’ve got a recipe for a huge pot of steaming nothing.  The American people let the pot cook for a year, unattended, and we expected upon arrival a bubbling bountiful feast but when we uncovered the pot all we found was hot air.

I believe there is much room for debate on this bill as it presently stands today.  99%’ers, those who suffered job losses and still have not gained employment after reaching the 99 week cut-off period are not included in this proposal’s job-less benefits of $56 Billion dollars.  One can argue the validity off a $130 Billion dollar Tax Cut package for the wealthiest of Americans while we stand in the midst of what now can be described as “recession denial”.

Also note the Payroll Tax deduction.  In case you are unaware, the payroll tax is what our government uses to pay for our social security.  This is the part I’d concentrate on.  Lowering the social security tax or payroll tax might put $800 dollars in your pocket this year, if you’re lucky, but it also places less in our social security coffers.  One could also argue that by lowering the payroll tax, the American will most likely get accustomed to a low payroll tax.  If after a period of time the payroll tax must be reinstated to original levels and the American citizens do not support its reinstatement, some could argue that we don’t need a payroll tax at all and vote to end the payroll tax all together.  Someone will then grow old and come to collect their social security and the government will inform them that they have no social security.  The citizen will confusingly inquire as to why.  The presiding official will then inform the innocent citizen that the pesky payroll taxes they wished not to pay were what funded the social security program.  If that happened, a) What a dark day and b) how will we purchase our TV Guide’s and talcum powder?

Let’s be realistic.  Republicans were refusing support on jobless benefits months ago.  The republicans were refusing to budge on the Bush Tax Cuts months ago.  The republicans with their eyes on the dismantling of social security had their eyes on a payroll tax holiday months ago.  The democrats, on a daily basis, refused to act as if they held a majority in the house and senate, with a democrat in the oval office as the kicker.  Sounds to me like someone dropped the ball; or rather a whole political party dropped the ball.  I hope our country and its citizens will eventually realize it is our congress who decides the direction in which our country will lead.  It is our congress who decides the pace at which we will travel.  As our President attempts to carry out a year’s worth of what should have been congress’ work and duty; I hope we realize that President Barack Obama has basically quickly pieced together economic scraps of this and that from here and there, some republican ideals, some democrat ideals, some notions are detailed and needed, some notions merely hush-money and un-selfish gestures.  Our President has in the end, done your congress and your senate’s jobs for them.  President Barack Obama has cleaned their rooms and made their beds as best as he can with the time allotted.  He’s done this so our congress and senate representatives can feel like they are the only people who are special and are important in our country.  It is not our President’s job to stand over congress and make sure they play well together.

It is however his job to protect the American people.  If this means stepping in to do the job of a dysfunctional congress, although embarrassing to our political process, so be it.  Believe it or not, under severe pressures and “time is of the essence” financial deadlines ignored by our congress, Barack Obama has managed to keep a number of people out of the cold this year.  Unfortunately due to the rule of chaos theory, the only people who will experience a raise in taxes due to this proposed plan are the individuals who make less than $20,000 dollars a year and families who make $40,000 dollars a year.  I find this disheartening and unallowable.  Any democrat, republican, independent, tea party advocate, or human should do whatever they can to make sure our country’s financial mistakes and shortcomings will not be placed on the already worn and tested shoulders of our economically less fortunate.  I have faith this issue will receive attention in the amendment phase of this proposed bill that will face a most definite passage into law, given the calmed nerves displayed by the democrats after the storms of emotion had subsided.

Sen. Bernie Sanders Shakes the World with an 8 Hour Pseudo-Filibuster or “Bernie Sanders & the Deathly Hallows”

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

Friday, December 10, as the clock read 10:25am, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont took hold of the Senate floor.  It would be 8 full hours before he would choose to return possession of the Senate Floor to its presiding President.  Sen. Bernie Sanders, the only Independent Senator presently holding office, walked into “filibuster history” as he opened his statements with these words,

“Mr. President, um, as I think everyone knows, the President of the United States, President Obama and the republican leadership have reached an agreement on a very significant tax bill.  In my view, the agreement that they reached is a bad deal for the American people.  I think we can do better and I am here today to take a strong stand against this bill and I intend to tell my colleagues in the nation exactly why I am in opposition to this bill and you can call what I’m doing today whatever you want.  You can call it a filibuster.  You can call it a very long speech.  I’m not here to set any great records or to make a spectacle.  I am simply here today to take as long as I can to explain to the American people the fact that we have got to do a lot better than this agreement provides.”

Due to the fact there were no Republicans present on the Senate floor and Senator Sanders was not preventing any other Senate business from being carried out, we are unable to legitimately label the Senator’s actions today as a filibuster*.  We can however, add the word pseudo and give him the credit of a technicality.  Although, as I listened to the Senator, I realized filibuster is merely a word.  Sen. Bernie Sanders consciously and procedurally chose to exhibit a detailed and frank presentation explaining, in his opinion, our government’s legislative and systematic demolition of the American Middle-Class.

This is not the first conversation that has been held on this subject within our Senate’s chamber.  What made this day in the Senate chamber different than most, if all, is the fact Sen. Sanders chose to share his 8 hours of opinions one-on-one with the American citizens who were attentively sitting on the other side of those “taken for granted” video cameras that record the daily action in the chamber.  Whether you favor, dislike, or were previously unaware of Sen. Bernie Sanders I share the following…  To observe his actions today was to observe a true statesman.

Whatever his policies and beliefs may be, the Senator spoke to the American people as if they were competent adults.  There was no rhetoric, there was no pandering, and there was no obvious disdain for an opposing party.  I saw only a man speaking to the people and it seemed as if all he sought to gain, at that moment, was the lending of an available ear.  On this day, the vacated chairs of the absent republican Senators were filled by the American people.  Or at least that’s what I have come to determine due to the rumor of a crashing Senate computer server due to overwhelming internet viewership and Sen. Sanders managing to become the #1 trending topic on Twitter nationally and #2 worldwide.

*The filibuster as a political delaying tactic has been a part of the American political process since the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. Though it was not used in the early years of the nation, the filibuster has been used hundreds of times since the 1840’s. (Garry Gamber)

Famous Filibusters in Political History

By Garry Gamber

Courtesy of ezinearticles.com

Senator Huey Long

Senator Huey Long, the fiery and colorful senator from Louisiana, made the filibuster famous between 1932 and 1935 when he utilized it several times to stall legislation that he considered unfair to the poor. Long frustrated his opponents and entertained the Senate gallery by reading Shakespeare, reciting shrimp and oyster recipes and talking about “pot-likkers.” An amendment to Senate Rule 19 later required that debate on legislation be germane to the issue being debated.

On June 12, 1935, Senator Long engaged in his most famous filibuster. A bill was before the Senate to eliminate the provision for the Senate to confirm senior National Recovery Act employees. Senator Long opposed the bill because he didn’t want his political adversaries in Louisiana to obtain lucrative N.R.A. jobs. Senator Long spoke for 15 hours and 30 minutes running well into the evening and early morning hours with senators dozing at their desks. Long read and analyzed each section of the Constitution, a document which he claimed had become “ancient and forgotten lore” under President Roosevelt’s New Deal.

After the reading of the Constitution Senator Long offered to give advice to the remaining senators on any subject of their choosing. No senator took Long up on his offer but the gallery patrons began sending notes to the floor for Senator Long to extemporize on. That kept Long going into the early hours of the morning. At 4 a.m. Long yielded the floor in order to use the restroom and his proposal was defeated.

Senator Strom Thurmond

About 9 p.m. on August 28, 1957, Senator Strom Thurmond rose before the Senate and announced, “Mr. President, I rise to speak against the so-called voting rights bill, H.R. 6127.” His own staff had not been informed about Senator Thurmond’s intentions to filibuster the bill, but they knew something was up when they saw Thurmond gathering considerable reading material.

Senator Thurmond had prepared himself for a long filibuster on the Senate floor. Earlier in the day he had spent time in the Senate steam room, dehydrating himself so that he would absorb all the water he drank without having to visit the restroom. His wife packed a steak sandwich lunch for him and she stayed in the family gallery throughout the night. Thurmond brought a quantity of malted milk tablets and throat lozenges from his office.

Senator Thurmond began his filibuster by reading each state’s election statutes. He later read and discussed an opinion by Chief Justice Taft. He also read and discussed the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, and Washington’s Farewell Address. His staff, concerned for Senator Thurmond’s health, was finally successful in getting him to leave the floor.

After 24 hours and 18 minutes, a record that still stands, Senator Thurmond concluded his remarks with, “I expect to vote against the bill.” The bill was defeated.

HISD and Trustee Lawrence Marshall Sued Under Federal RICO Statute; Accused of Rigging HISD Bid Process

By Maurice E. Duhon, Jr.

Depending on your geographic location, you may believe, it’s beginning to look a lot like Christmas, Hanukkah, or whatever holiday or end-of-the-year sale that floats your boat.  Houston attorney Chad Dunn has wrapped up a “Happy holidays” gift for the Houston Independent School District school trustee Lawrence Marshall.  Dunn has even decided to allow Marshall to open the gift “immediately upon receiving”.

The gift came in the form of a lawsuit that was introduced into Federal court Tuesday December 7^th.  Needless to say, the gift lacked any bow or card.  It did however, include accusations of H.I.S.D. canceling work contracts and replacing contractors, who had been selected through a bid process, with one of Lawrence Marshall’s political donors.  According to the lawsuit, Marshall helped cultivate an environment that ushered the voluntary self-ousting of former HISD superintendent Abe Saavedra after Saavedra refused to allow Marshall to replace one of the approved contractors with one of Marshall’s political patrons, Eva Jackson and her company RHJ-JOC, INC.

Chad Dunn is representing Contractor Gil Ramirez Jr. and the Gil Ramirez Group, who has also filed their suit against HISD itself.  The Ramirez Group claims that HISD has been charging a 2 percent” marketing fee” to its contractors upon completed work projects (AKA illegal kickbacks).  Aside from the Ramirez Group’s claims that this practice has been going on for 10 years, the group goes further into claiming the kickbacks are put into HISD’s general fund and are not used toward a security bond, instead they are used for the district’s operating expenses.  Allegations in this suit include bribery (Defendant Eva Jackson’s PHJ-JOC, INC receiving preferential treatment due to political contributions), money laundering (how the money was transferred), and wire fraud (2% fees a la kickbacks).

Upon a detailed review of this lawsuit’s allegations, are we to be surprised that Chris Dunn has chosen to file this lawsuit as a violation of the federal RICO Act?  For those of you who were “absent from school that day”, The RICO Act or Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act is a federal law enacted to give extended penalties in the prosecution of organized criminal acts. The RICO Act deals with federal crimes and criminal procedure. Although it was intended to be used for the Mafia and others engaged in organized crime, RICO has been used to prosecute all sorts of criminal activity since its inception.

In response to questions on why he chose to file under the RICO Act, attorney Dunn stated: “That statute’s designed for a group of folks who get together and try to obtain the results they want from a governmental entity through using undue influence.  It’s the Racketeering Influence Corrupt Practices Act so we think it’s designed to handle this situation.”  Dunn also was quoted as saying “It disappoints me.  It disappoints me as a father of children in the school district and as a taxpayer and as a lawyer for clients who did good work for the public through HISD and through no fault of their own lost the work.  It disappoints me that public tax dollars in a sense are being distributed based on reasons other than what is in the best value for the taxpayer.”

According to the lawsuit, the Ramirez Group and 5 other contracting firms had survived an expensive, on the part of the firms, HISD bid process.  The six firms were on the job for nine months when suddenly all six contracts were cancelled.

The lawsuit states that Marshall approached Abe Saavedra, superintendent at the time, when Marshall became president of the school board asking Saavedra to use Jackson as a contractor.  Saavedra refused, the lawsuit reads “Defendant Marshall states that he would move forward to obtain an agreement from the school board forcing out Dr. Saavedra.”  The lawsuit also states, “Once Saavedra is gone, Marshall makes sure all contracts for the approved contractors are cancelled.”

The HISD chief of bidding chose to agree with Saavedra and oppose the re-bidding process; he was “ultimately fired by HISD.”

After the re-bidding process, Jackson’s company was the only company to be approved.  This reminds me of that old phrase, “killing six birds with one stone”.  The lawsuit goes on to say that two more companies were later added.

With this statement, Dunn sums up his reasoning for this lawsuit’s existence.  “What we’re trying to do is straighten up the process and have a fair bidding process that’s in the public and out in the open and also the Ramirez Group wants compensation for these unfair practices.”

Political rhetoric rings loud with comments such as, “It begins with our children!” and “Our children are the key to our future!”  How can the taxpayers of Houston give undivided attention to their children’s needs when the adults, who are put in charge to look after the children’s best educational interests, refuse to or are unable to compose and govern themselves in an ethical and respectable manner?  Maybe we should recommend our HISD board members and administrators switch roles and positions with our HISD students for a while?  We would probably get some needed administrative work done and since HISD administrators can at least read, maybe we could see a rise in HISD’s dismal 45% dropout rate.

If you are unaware, there is a stigma that is attached to any defendant who stands accused of violating the Federal RICO ACT.  Past defendants accused of violating RICO include the Hell’s Angels, the Latin Kings street gang, infamous mobsters, Wall Street inside trading violators, an extortion practicing health care provider, and others.  Although innocent until proven guilty, Lawrence Marshall and the HISD administration have now only helped to soil the already muddied reputation of the Houston Independent School District.  Did I mention the 45% drop-out rate?

For the good times, enjoy…