Sessons and Fitzpatrick have caused a Constitutional Breech. I believe it was intentional to begin unprecedented assault against the document itself.

Their right to maintain their office needs to be examined and the basis of that examination needs to be then filed as a hostile act against the USA Constitution followed by impeachment and/or a challenge in the Supreme Court.

"Grown-Ups need to be treaeted as Grown-Ups" and not simply slapped on the wrist and sent to the time out chair.

..."Our absence on the House (click here) floor during the oath of office ceremony for the 112th Congress - while not intentional - fell short of this standard by creating uncertainty regarding our standing in this body," they said. "We regret that this incident adversely affected House proceedings and apologize for any individual inconvenience our actions may have caused."...

There are also strong ethical considerations. 

Mr. Sessons spoke at great length before any votes were cast when he should not have even been on the floor of the House.  The entire vote has to be thrown out and the bills rescinded.

...On the very first day of the 112th Congress, (click here) three members were missing when Speaker John Boehner administered the oath of office to members-elect. One Democrat, Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-OR), had an excused absence because of a meeting in his district about a local veterans hospital. Two Republicans just flat-out missed it.


Rep. Pete Sessions (R-TX) and incoming Rep Mike Fitzpatrick (R-PA) cast their votes in favor of John Boehner for Speaker, but then made their way down below the basement of the Capitol to the Capitol Visitors Center, where Fitzpatrick's constituents were waiting....

One Congressman had respect for the Constitution and the Swearing In Ceremony by requesting an excused absence for circumstances beyond his control.  THAT is grossly different than simply dismissing the constitutional ceremony as if a matter of inconvenience.  When is Speaker Boner handle his authority correctly rather than dividiing his loyalty to the country and its constittion along party lines?

If the answer is never, then there needs to be a review of all these issues by the Democrats to record one of the most irreverent Congress Sessions of modern times and what exactly has to be done about it.

The Repuglicans are not capable of governing.  They have been.  Today the GOP is so debased the competency and integrity of the House Proceedings is severely in question.  This is more of the Tom DeLay "Hammer" mess and we all know where he is today.

The 'illogic' of the argument of the Repuglicans is plain as day and basically has NOTHING to do with individual freedoms.

Vehicle insurance is about liability costs when a person is involved in an accident.  Those liability costs are enormous in relation to the average American's ability to pay.  Most vehicle accidents would result in sincere loss of wealth/home/savings and would cause hardship on both the person causing the accident and the other party.

If there were no vehicle insurance it would immobilze society.

Health insurance is also liability insurance.  The difference here is that when people access the emergency room or otherwise without insurance, it impacts a large pool of 'value' if you will.  In other words, the doctor or hospital or 'care center' has some degree of value that cushions it from the loss of an occassional person unable to pay.  Is that the way it should be?  Is that moral?  Is it moral from the standpoint of forcing those that are unable to obtain and keep health insurance to forego care?

No matter how one looks at it the morality of the Accordable Health Care for Americans Act is more moral to all parties than any other alternative.  It is moral to the institutions, the practitioners, the patients and the people that are employed in the practice of health care.

It is not moral of a populous to expect a hospital to accommodate those that are unable to pay for services they do not have a choice in needing to absorb all those costs and 'write it off.'  Writing it off by a non-profit institution is hideous.  Many health care institutions are non-profit which means they should be practicing 'fairness' in their costs.  To impose a social standard that requires health care institutions, no matter how one defines that, to absorg their losses is not only immoral but dooms vital institutions to failure in the long run.

No matter how one tries to analogize 'car insurance' with 'health care insurance' it doesn't apply.  There are very different paradigms that exist in both instances. 

If a society is going to say they value high quality health care, but, then qualifies it for a 'class' of citizen that can afford it, that is an egrigious standard.  It 'sets up' certain classes of citizens to a predetermined outcome in their lives.  That LACK of morality demands that citizens in lower socio-economic classes in the USA are disposable and are not necessary for a society to value.  Basically, why demand health care for all if certain classes of people aren't worth the effort or the 'moral standard.' 

The immorality of allowing people to exist in life without the ability to access quality care in the USA is a Plutocratic value that diminishes the importance of human life and places on a 'value added' scale. 

The last two decades has proven the Repuglican 'Value System' that denies citizens access to quality health care is a slippery slope.  It was stopped and now it needs to be appreciated.  There is no valid argument to repeal the law.  There is however a great deal of validity to realizing how ungainly the spending for military prowess is in a world that doesn't really need it anymore.  Now, if someone wants to discuss moral content of a society and the value of peace to offering citizens quality of life, that would interesting.

If transportation, in the year 2011, didn't require a car; then why did this elderly man break the law?

If the analogy between car insurance and health care was remoting correct, every roadway would be open to any moving vehicle at all.  It would have to be and automobiles would have no 'special consideration.'

This law prohibits anything except motor vehicles to go from point A to point B.  Actually, it isn't just motor vehicles, it automobiles correctly registered with the State.

Hello?

The wheelchair is motorized.

Now, what was that about cars being unnecessary?

Elderly man takes wheelchair on joyride down interstate  (click title to entry - thank you)

Posted: Jan 07, 2011 8:09 AM EST Updated: Jan 07, 2011 8:12 AM EST

FAIRFIELD, CT (CNN) - This isn't the best way to deal with rising gas prices.

An elderly man drove his electric wheelchair down I-95 in Fairfield, CT on Thursday.

Although cameras caught the driver mostly on the shoulder, authorities believe he did make it onto the highway at one point.

The man wasn't given a ticket. However, police say traveling on a highway on an electric scooter or wheelchair is illegal.

The Drama Queens in the USA House of Representatives do not have a clear concensus on repeal of any major legislation.

PRINCETON, NJ -- Americans do not strongly endorse the new Republican House majority's efforts to repeal the landmark healthcare legislation passed last year. A new Gallup poll finds that 46% of Americans want their representative in Congress to vote to repeal the healthcare law, 40% want their representative to vote to let the law stand, and 14% have no opinion....

PURE

UNADULTERATED

POLITICS.

Playing with the country's future is not what I would call a minor issue.  The law took an entire year of debate and procedure, not to mention the years and years of preparation, and in one week the Repuglicans want to repeal it.

Amazing.

The Affordable Health Care for America Act provides for bringing more primary care physicians into practice and more health care workers into the labor force.  Repealing this vital legislation is gross malpractice by the Repuglicans. 

Shame on them.

I heard the argument as to how requiring Health Care is so much different than requiring car insurance.  It goes like this, "You don't have to own a car."

Did you get that right?

"You don't have to own a car."  Therefore requiring car insurance is something the average person can avoid.

That is not only moronic in its logic, the analogy would require someone to NOT have to own health care.

Got that?

In other words, the only reason the Health Care Affordability Act is unconstitutional is because everyone requires health care, it is not an option.

Huh?

Why don't the Repuglicans tell that to the hundreds of thousand dead Americans that died becuase they LACKED health care.  See, according to the Repuglican logic, the dead American is a great patriot for not having health care, the constitutional thing to do instead of purchasing required insurance.

It doesn't get more stupid than that.

If the Justice Department should expect some kind of reply from Ms. Jonsdottir.

Then again, maybe not.  The satellites have been pulled out of Iceland and the USA didn't have much compassion for Iceland when Paulson imploded the global economy.

By Kim Zetter

January 7, 2011  | 

6:14 pm

The U.S. Justice Department (click title to entry - thank you) has served Twitter with a subpoena seeking information on an Icelandic lawmaker who has worked with WikiLeaks and its founder Julian Assange, the lawmaker told Threat Level on Friday.
“I got the letter from Twitter a couple of hours ago, saying I got 10 days to stop it,” wrote Birgitta Jonsdottir, a member of Iceland’s parliament, in an e-mail. “Looking for legal ways to do it. Will be talking to lawyers from EFF tonight.”
EFF refers to the Electronic Frontier Foundation, a non-profit civil liberties group in the United States.
On her Twitter feed, Jonsdottir said the government is seeking an archive of tweets she sent out since Nov. 1, 2009 as well as “personal information” for her account....

Pakistan Rocks. Love the tissue boxes.

Pakistani Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani (right of center) speaks with leaders of MQM during a meeting at their headquarters in Karachi on January 7.

The Pakistan People's Party has once again regained its footing.  At this time of year the fuel price hikes were not good.  They need to be rethought.

January 07, 2011

By Abubakar Siddique

Less than a week (click title to entry - thank you) after the country descended into political chaos when the Muttahida Qaumi Movement (MQM) defected to the opposition, leaving the Pakistan People's Party (PPP) scrambling to find new alliances, the MQM has returned to preserve the ruling coalition's majority.

MQM official Raza Haroon made the announcement on January 7 after days of hectic discussions that culminated in Prime Minister Yousaf Raza Gilani's visit to MQM headquarters in the southern seaport of Karachi.

"For the sake of our country, nation, and democracy, and in response to the prime minister's good will and for the promotion of democracy and keeping in view the delicate [political] situation of the country, Muttahida is announcing to sit on the government benches [in the parliament]," Haroon said. "But our coordination committee has decided that we will not be able to rejoin the federal cabinet for now."

But to woo his largest coalition partner back into the fold, Prime Minister Gilani was forced to accede to a key MQM demand -- the lifting of recently imposed and highly unpopular fuel-price hikes. And with the end of the short-lived austerity measures rises the question of whether Gilani set Pakistan on the road to economic ruin in order to preserve his government.

Jan Brewer's Arizona is a prime example of why Repuglican agendas are ineffective and Anti-American.

...they could no longer afford. (click title to entry - thank you) The state faces a projected $1 billion program deficit by July 2011.

...On Nov. 28, Mark Price, a 37-year-old leukemia patient from Goodyear, Ariz., died before he could obtain a $250,000 bone marrow transplant that an anonymous donor offered to fund after hearing media reports about Price's plight....

July 2011 is NOT today.  There are people dying TODAY. 

Individual Income Tax (for Arizona as of July 2010 - click here)

Net Collections $198,266,300

Percent Change 8.7%

The income to the state of Arizona increased by 8.7% in July 2010.  That means the incomes of individuals in the state has increased.  The economy in Arizona is recovering.

Arizona has some of the lowest income tax rates in the nation.  There is absoluely no reason why people are dying today in Arizona.  There is plenty of time to react to ANY IF AT ALL short fall in the budget for Medicare and 'right now' there is plenty that can be done.

How Arizona State income tax rates are structured

The tax table below will show in detail the Arizona state income tax rates by income tax bracket(s). There are 5 income tax brackets for Arizona.

If your income range is between $0 and $10,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2.59%.
If your income range is between $10,001 and $25,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 2.88%.
If your income range is between $25,001 and $50,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 3.36%.
If your income range is between $50,001 and $150,000, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4.24%.
If your income range is $150,001 and over, your tax rate on every dollar of income earned is 4.54%.

Jan Brewer ran for the Governorship based on the concept of no tax increases for the citizens of Arizona and now the neediest of people; people unable to change their circumstances; are dying.  That is Anti-American and Brewer should be impeached.

There is every indication the income tax 'incomes' will continue to improve over time and in sufficient amounts to afford transplants for Medicaid recipients.

Brewer's Arizona could easily raise income tax levels to cover the Medicaid Transplant program.

NONE of the deaths to date are necessary and all anticipated in the future can be avoided.

It is up to Harry now.

...Baucus began hearings (click title to entry - thank you) on tax reform last September, when he declared "our continued prosperity and international competitiveness rest on our facing these challenges." But now with Reid and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's publicly on board, tax reform could become the next big issue for Congress to tackle this year after the debate on raising the national debt ceiling....

Filibuster Reform has to occur.  It is stifling the nation.  There is no reason to believe the Repuglicans are capable to good governance.  They weren't capable of it in the Senate and now the House is a disaster, with only an occassion glimmer of hope such as Rep. Allen West, former military, joined The Black Caucus. (click here)

...On several occasions in 2010, (click here) a majority of senators wanted to bring legislation to the Senate floor to extend unemployment benefits for millions of workers who had been laid off for long stretches.

The most frustrating incident occurred in late June, when I was one of 59 senators who wanted to restore unemployment benefits for laid-off workers who had been without them since May. The Republican minority in the Senate objected and delayed the vote using procedural tactics — then departed town for a weeklong break, leaving those 1.3 million jobless Americans in limbo for several agonizing weeks.

An empty Senate is no way to respond to Americans who need help, and yet this is what’s happening in today’s Washington....

I really have to congratulate Former House Majority Leader and now House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, in that she never wavered to the reform the country needed, even when the Senate was most dysfunctional. 

...The distressing truth (click here) is that the federal government appears to be incapable of tackling the big issues that will determine the nation's future health and vitality. Is it because we're too polarized by divisions of ideology, race or class? Is it a lack of will or resources? Or the pernicious influence of corruption and malfeasance?

The answer? None of the above.

The real source of federal-level dysfunction is the United States Senate.

The fact is that a two-chamber legislative branch was not the preferred model for many of our Founding Fathers. Thomas Paine argued for a single chamber. Benjamin Franklin thought having both a House and a Senate was like "putting one horse before a cart and the other behind it, and whipping them both."
But even Franklin would never have imagined just how incapable of action the Senate would become. That's because when he was around, the filibuster — which requires 60 votes to end debate and begin voting on pending legislation — hadn't been invented. It didn't become part of Senate rules until 1806. Even then, it was purely an accident — the unintentional consequence of a housekeeping measure to simplify the Senate rule book....

It is best that Tax Reform occur while Harry's Democrats have the final say.  There is a lot of work to be done when the Senate returns, including the conclusion of the tax debate.  When tax reform occurs the nation will finally be rid of the corruption the the Repuglians of the past 4 decades. 

NO MORE CORPORATE DARLINGS HARRY.

One of the greatest contributions of Secretary of Defense Robert Gates to the nation under the Obama Administration are his administrative reforms in obtaining military hardware and cutting the budget.  He has been a very dedicated member of the USA citizenry and I thank him.  He will be missed.

Gates Eyes $78 Billion in Pentagon Savings Through 2016