In a stressful economic time were homes are being foreclosed on every block this story cuts to the quick. The story of Bob and Jane Cull described by NPR Weekend Saturday will bring you to tears and question one's faith in the entrepreneur.

As the story goes, the Cull's were an upper middle class couple who had decided to build their dream home. A story that sounds familiar to everyone whether we build or buy. They had the fortunate ability to have the time and money to search for their perfect lot to build for five years. They found the plans they wanted and hired a builder. They moved into their home and had been greatly pleased for six weeks. Then the foundation problems began. When a main structural beam weakened, they hired an engineer, who then told them the bad news.

This began their 13 year odyssey. The Cull's obtained a lawyer and started legal proceedings against their former builder, Perry Homes. Now in Texas, the legal system is never for the average person. Texas is renowned to forego legal protection to ensure a healthy business climate. In this case, the Cull's went to arbitration as the law demanded. They won and the builder was instructed to pay the Culls a settlement of $800,000, remarkable by Texas standards. However, the builder just happened to be the richest and most politically connected builder in the state. Rather than pay the settlement he spent his money by stalling. He mis-used the legal process by appealing, and appealing, and appealing. At the same time he was contributing to the campaign funds of Governor Perry (no connection to the builder), State Supreme Court candidates, George W. Bush, and was the largest single contributor to Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth." The case finally ended up before the Texas State Supreme Court, whose membership did not have the temerity to recuse themselves due to a conflict of interest. It doesn't stop there. The owner of Perry Homes was able to lobby for and obtain passage by the Texas Legislature a law to ensure more protection for homebuilders. Yes, you heard it right for the builder not the owner. And it gets better, the attorney for the Cull's home builder who continued to appeal this case and mis-used the legal system is now the head of the new agency created to ensure the protection of homebuilders.

Meanwhile, the Texas Supreme Court in a phenomenal miscarriage of justice voted 5 to 4 to throw out the $800,000 Cull judgement stating that the case should not have gone to arbitration and sent the case back to court. Hence, after 13 years of court challenges, the Cull's now have to start all over again, possibly with the same state agency just created and headed by the attorney hired by Perry Homes to appeal their case.

At a time when America continues to measure the ramifications of the mortgage crisis, this incident just cries out for justice. The Cull's went through the entire process as prescribed by law at the time and 13 years later they can't sell their home because it would not pass inspection. In addition, they cannot afford the hundreds of thousands of dollars to fix their dream home. All is not completely lost. They do get to begin their case again. Hopefully, they will obtain their judgement and all the money it took to appeal the case and the cost the opposition put in appealing the case. Perry Homes knew they were wrong, yet they continually appealed their case to stall and prevent paying the judgement. Talk about frivolous lawsuits. This is not only frivolous it's ridiculous. I wonder how much Perry Homes paid in legal fees to appeal. I bet it would have been cheaper to pay the judgement. Meanwhile, the Cull's home is falling down around them. What can you expect out of a state that follows the golden rule, " he who has the gold makes the rules."

The New York Times Reported as of Sunday Febrary 8, 2009
quote in article by Sharon Otterman


"Significant differences exist between the House and Senate versions of the stimulus package, primarily over tens of billions of dollars in aid to states and local governments, tax provisions and programs for education, health and renewable energy. Even so, lawmakers from both sides of the aisle said that they expected fast action on the bill, perhaps even getting it to President Obama’s desk by week’s end.

The bill produced through negotiations in the Senate late Friday night and into Saturday is a $827 billion package of government spending and tax cuts. It cuts some $40 billion in aid to states from the House version of the bill and scales back President Obama’s signature middle-class tax cut. The Senate plan also creates new tax incentives to encourage Americans to buy homes and cars within the next year.

Just three Senate Republicans have pledged to support the measure — Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania, Susan Collins of Maine and Senator Olympia J. Snowe of Maine. But their votes are enough to lift Democrats over the filibuster-proof number of 60 votes needed to pass the bill."

For those of you not familiar with Senate procedure, you may find this a surprising thing "bipartisanship".  Especially since there are 58 Senate democrats (at last count).  One might think that one could get things done with a majority.  Well, the Senate is an old antiquated machine.  Senators have much more power than representativves.  Once a Senator is recognzied on the floor, he/she can talk until they feel like stopping, not so in the House.  Hence, since a new tool has developed in the last 30 or so years to ensure that bills get passed.  It si called a "Unanimous Consent Agreement", heretofore UCA. 

A UCA is a tool whereby the majority leader works out in detail every step of procedure for passage of a bill, including when amendments will be introduced and how long for debate.  Yes, a UCA can limit debate, because it contains a set of rules agreed upon.  It also takes 60 votes to institute a UCA.  Otherwise, the rules are not binding.  Consequently, this is why the Senate is such a slow body.  It takes more than a majority to get things done.  Also, it illustrates how a determined minority, in this case the Republicans, and disrupt the whole process.

There is a danger here for both the Democrats and the Republicans.  Less than a week after becoming President, the President went to Capital hill to talk with Republicans.  Now, this is an ineresting relationship, one that shows that an insider knows what to do.  The danger for the Democrats is that if the Stimulus bill does not pass they will be seen as too partisan and the economy may get worse.  The danger for the Repbulicans is that if they are seen as obstructionist, they could be in danger of becoming the minority party for another 50 years. 

Clearly, what has worked in the past, will not work now!  Tax cuts for the rich and powerful do not trickle down to the rest of us.  What we need is "percolate up politics" and that is what is occuring now.  What may be needed, and Political Scientists are watching this, is a rule change in the Senate.  This would irrevocabley change the structure of the Senate, but it may be needed to get that chamber back to a workable body.  The Senate is a representative body, at present, and the old institutional rules may need to be altered.  I know watch what you wish for.  However, it the Stimulus bill does not pass, one may begin to question the value of the Senate as an institution.