.
August 12th, 2010
01:49 PM ET

Should Pres. Obama drop Biden for Clinton in 2012?

ALT TEXT

(PHOTO CREDIT: JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama should drop Joe Biden and put Hillary Clinton on the ticket with him if he runs for re-election in 2012.

It's an idea that's getting lots of attention these days... despite the fact that the election is still more than two years away.

This all heated up after a piece on Politico.com this month by former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder. He says as Secretary of State, Clinton has been nothing but a team player. Wilder says she's been tough and commanding when necessary... as well as graceful and diplomatic. He then compares her to Biden, who as Vice President has continued to make his infamous gaffes.

Wilder also points out that Clinton might be able to help the President win key voting blocs, like middle class Independents and working class voters.

Since the Wilder piece, the idea is popping up all over, from the pages of the Wall Street Journal to Time magazine, AOL's Politics Daily and The Daily Beast.

Some suggest Clinton and Biden should swap roles as Secretary of State and Vice President... while others argue that putting Clinton on the ticket will give Pres. Obama the best shot at re-election.

And then there's the whole notion of President Obama creating yet another historic ticket - with the first female vice president.

As for The White House - it quickly shot down this idea, insisting Joe Biden will continue to be a "trusted partner" for the president.

Of course, this could be a moot point if Mrs. Clinton decides to make another run at the top job.

Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama drop Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton as his running mate in 2012?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

August 12th, 2010
01:47 PM ET

Federal workers earning double private sector workers

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

While the economy - with nearly 10 percent unemployment - is struggling to get on its feet, it seems like it's still a pretty good time to work for the federal government.

USA Today reports that on average, federal employees earn double what private sector workers make. In 2009, federal civil servants earned about $123,000 - that's the total of pay and benefits... compared to $61,000 for private workers.

For nine years in a row, federal workers have been getting bigger pay and benefit increases than private employees... and the compensation gap between the two groups has grown from $30,000 10 years ago to almost $62,000 today.

Unions for public employees insist this is because most federal jobs require a high level of skill and education; and because the government contracts out many lower-paying jobs to the private sector.

But a lot of people don't buy that argument. Critics say federal workers are overpaid. And Republicans in Congress want to cancel the 1.4 percent across-the-board pay hike for federal workers that Pres. Obama is calling for.

Consider this: federal compensation has grown nearly 37 percent since 2000... compared to less than nine percent for private sector employees.

It's no wonder our government can't keep a lid on spending with statistics like this... the federal budget deficit just for the month of July was more than $165 billion. Meanwhile millions of Americans are losing or have lost their jobs, and millions of others have been forced to take a pay cut.

Here’s my question to you: In this economy, should federal workers be earning twice what private sector workers do?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST


Filed under: Economy