CNN

Here’s my question to you: Can the U.S. survive without health care reform?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

Here’s my question to you: Are chaos and failure the legacy of the Copenhagen climate summit?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

San Francisco could become the first city in the country to require radiation labels for cell phones.

Mayor Gavin Newsom is backing a proposal that would require stores to post the radiation levels next to each cell phone - in a size at least as large as the price. They would also have to tell customers what the radiation levels mean.

So far - scientists don't agree whether cell phones pose a health hazard, and the Federal Communications Commission insists that all phones legally sold in the U.S. are safe.

Not surprisingly - a cell phone industry group disputes the idea that cell phone radiation is dangerous. They point to research from groups like the American Cancer Society that cell phones are "unlikely" to cause cancer... and from the World Health Organization that cell phones aren't a public health risk.

But not everyone is so sure. One advocacy group says only recently have studies taken a look at radiation effects of people using cell phones for more than 10 years. They point to research in other countries that shows increased rates of brain and salivary gland tumors - especially on the side of the head where people use their cell phones.

In any case - there are 270 million cell phone subscribers in the U.S... and, if this becomes law in San Francisco - California often times leads the rest of the country when it comes to this stuff.

Here’s my question to you: Should cell phone stores have to post radiation levels?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Congress is turning its attention to one of the most pressing issues of our time: lowering the volume of TV commercials.

That's correct - apparently we no longer need to be concerned with the little stuff... you know... like the worst recession since the Great Depression, health care reform, skyrocketing deficits, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, 10-percent unemployment, a crisis in education... the commercials on television are too loud and something must be done.

The House has passed a measure by a voice vote called Commercial Advertisement Loudness Mitigation Act - or CALM... which says that ads can be no louder than the TV shows during which they appear. An identical measure is making it way through the Senate.

Supporters call loud ads annoying and frustrating and say they came up with the bill after finding out this was a common complaint with the Federal Communications Commission. The measure would require the FCC to set new rules within a year - and start enforcing them a year later. Meanwhile - experts say viewers may not even be able to tell the difference if this becomes law.

When asked why Congress has to get involved in this, Republican Congressman Cliff Stearns of Florida said: "You can say, 'Well, that's fine. Just turn it off. But it's constantly an irritant when you have to do it. And we've got all the new bowl games coming up."

I now want to sharpen a pencil and jam it in my ear because I cannot take it anymore.

Here’s my question to you: On a list of the great issues of our time, where does controlling the volume of TV commercials rank?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

The Thomson Correctional Facility in Thompson, Illinois. President Obama has announced that the prison will be home to roughly 100 prisoners currently being held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. (PHOTO CREDIT: Jeff Haynes/Getty Images)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Obama administration is coming under fire for its decision to move some Guantanamo detainees to an Illinois maximum-security prison.

The plan is for the federal government to buy the Thomson Correctional Center - 150 miles west of Chicago. The Defense Department would then run the part of the prison housing what's expected to be fewer than 100 Gitmo detainees. There are about 215 prisoners currently being held at the controversial facility in Cuba.

Administration officials say the detainees going to Illinois would be those facing trial in U.S. courts or by military commission.

Illinois' governor says this move could bring 2,000 jobs and $1 billion to the local community - a big help to a state with an 11-percent unemployment rate.

But critics say it could wind up being another place where detainees are held indefinitely without trial. Republicans suggest this shows the White House has forgotten about the 9/11 terror attacks; and that they're bringing terrorists into the country under the guise of a "jobs program."

The ACLU is blasting the move as well, calling the Illinois prison "Gitmo North." They say closing Guantanamo is only a symbolic gesture if "we continue its lawless policies onshore."

Here’s my question to you: Is it a good idea to move Guantanamo detainees to an Illinois prison?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The national debt - now topping $12 trillion - has more than doubled in just the last eight years...

The National Debt Clock in midtown Manhattan in July 2009. Those numbers currently top $12 trillion.

And experts say that if the government doesn't come up with a plan soon to get the debt under control - we could risk panic in the financial markets. They say the government shouldn't raise taxes or cut spending immediately so as not to hurt the economic recovery. But the changes will have to happen by 2012 or else. Don't hold your breath...

One option on the table is a bipartisan commission to look into sweeping tax increases and spending cuts. CNN is reporting that President Obama is seriously considering an executive order to set up such a panel. Excuse me, but isn't that what the government is supposed to do... manage taxes and spending?

This latest brainstorm would have a bipartisan group taking months to study the problem and then decide AFTER the 2010 midterm elections what to do. Wouldn't want to raise taxes or cut spending before they're up for re-election, right?

Meanwhile - instead of the proposed $2 trillion increase in the debt ceiling - fiscal hawks In Congress want to increase it by only a "couple hundred billion dollars" at a time.

I guess the idea is that way nobody will notice how far in the toilet we are. If the U.S. doesn't raise the debt ceiling by the end of this year - we will default on our debt. This is scary stuff and requires a backbone to make some tough calls. So let's get someone else to do it.

Here’s my question to you: Is a special commission the answer to finally addressing the deficit?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

More proof that religion and politics are deeply connected in the U.S. - especially if you're a Republican.

A new Gallup poll shows the religious intensity of Americans is a strong predictor of whether they're Democrat or Republican. In a survey of nearly 30,000 people:

49 percent of Americans who call themselves Republicans say they're "highly religious"... meaning they go to church at least once a week and say religion is important in their daily lives. That's compared to 37 percent of Democrats who feel that way.

At the other extreme - only 26 percent of Republicans say they're "not religious" - meaning they never attend church and say religion isn't important... That's compared to 56 percent of Democrats.

When it comes to race - the poll shows that African-Americans are strongly Democratic - regardless of how religious they are. Also, Latinos skew more toward the Democratic party.

However, the religious connection is strongest among whites. Consider this: Whites who are highly religious are more than twice as likely to identify as Republicans rather than Democrats... and - exactly the opposite pattern emerges among whites who are not religious - by a 2-to-1 margin they are likely Democrats.

In all - about half of the white population in this country is both highly religious and leans toward the Republican Party.

With numbers like these - it's no wonder we hear Republican politicians invoking God and morality more often than the Democrats.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that Republicans are more likely to be "highly religious" than Democrats?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It may not have been pushing the panic button but it was close.

Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT)

President Obama summoned the Senate Democrats to the White House in a last ditch effort to get something they can call health care reform through the Senate without being embarrassed.

The president was expected to characterize this as the "last chance" to pass comprehensive reform. It's yet to be determined if it's either comprehensive or actual reform.

The Senate is racing to pass this thing by Christmas - whatever it is. The problem is they need 60 votes, and with Democrats, that means they have 60 opinions.

The biggest obstacle has been Senator Joe Lieberman of Connecticut - an independent who caucuses with the Democrats. Lieberman has threatened to join a Republican filibuster if the bill includes either the public option - or a provision allowing people older than 55 to buy into Medicare.

Lieberman couldn't even win his state's Democratic primary last time around - but he's threatening to block the whole enchilada here.

In 2006, Joe Lieberman ranked second in the Senate in the amount of money he took from the insurance industry. His state, Connecticut, has more than 22,000 people who work for health insurance companies.

In the last 10 years, Lieberman has taken more than a million dollars in contributions from insurance companies. One e-mailer called him "Senator Aetna."

Here’s my question to you: Is this the last chance ever for health care reform in the U.S.?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Nearly a year after Pres. George W. Bush left office - computer technicians have found 22 million e-mails that his administration said were missing.

(L to R) Condoleeza Rice, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld.

Two watchdog groups - who had sued over these documents - say the e-mails had been "mislabeled and effectively lost."

But - it could still be years before the public gets to see any of this stuff. First they have to go through the National Archives - they decide which e-mails get released. Records from the Bush White House won't be available until 2014 - at the earliest.

A former spokesman for Bush says too much is being made of the discovery of these e-mails, and that misleading statements about the former administration show "a continued anti-Bush agenda." What he fails to mention is that there is a law that says records of the president must be preserved. But then the Bush White House often ignored laws when it was convenient for them to do so.

You suppose it's just coincidence that the 22 million e-mails from 2003 to 2005 cover some pretty significant periods of history - including the months leading up to the Iraq war, the firings of U.S. attorneys by the Bush administration and the announcement of a criminal investigation into the leaking of CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson's name? Sure.

Here’s my question to you: Will the public ever get the truth of what happened during the Bush administration?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Turns out federal government workers haven't had it so bad during the recession... on average making nearly twice as much as workers in the private sector.

USA Today puts the average federal worker's pay at about $71,000... compared with about $40,000 in the private sector.

What's more - the number of federal workers making $100,000 or more went from 14-percent to 19-percent during the first 18-months of the recession... This at a time when more than seven million Americans lost their jobs in the private sector.

And, This increase in federal workers making 6-figure salaries is happening everywhere - big and small agencies, high and low-tech jobs. The reasons for the jump in pay are substantial pay raises along with new salary rules.

Consider this: Federal employees will get a two-percent pay raise in January 2010.

50 million Social Security recipients will get no cost of living increase next year for the first time in more than 30 years. But government workers are getting a raise. The reason is that social security increases are pegged to the cost of living. And that actually went down over the last 12 months - which means the cost of living is going down.

So… no increase for the nation's elderly on Social Security… but government workers get a raise - even though they already average almost twice as much as workers in the private sector.

Makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean that the average federal worker makes almost twice as much as the average private sector worker?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm to see if Jack reads your answer on air.

And, we love to know where you’re writing from, so please include your city and state with your comment.