CNN

A three-year-old girl receives an H1N1 vaccination in San Pablo, California. (PHOTO CREDIT: JUSTIN SULLIVAN/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With the swine flu now widespread in 48 states, Americans are starting to lose confidence in the government's ability to prevent an epidemic.

A new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows only 51-percent of those surveyed are confident the government can stop a nationwide epidemic of the h1n1 virus. That number is down from 59-percent in August.

49-percent say they're not sure the government can prevent an epidemic; and that's up from 40-percent this summer.

The poll also shows only a little more than half of those surveyed think the government and private industry can provide enough swine flu vaccine for everyone who wants it. That number is virtually unchanged in the last few months.

Meanwhile mothers with children younger than 18 are especially skeptical about the government's abilities here. Perhaps not surprising when you consider that children are some of the hardest hit by this virus; and a lot of people still can't get their hands on the vaccine.

Health officials say there are more than 41 million doses of the H1N1 vaccine available.

Here’s my question to you: How confident are you the government can prevent a swine flu epidemic?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

Signs advertise medical marijuana prescriptions outside an evaluation clinic on Venice Beach in Los Angeles. (PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RALSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Public support for legalizing marijuana is at an all-time high - no pun intended.

And coincidentally, the Obama administration is easing up on the use of medical marijuana. The Justice Department now says pot-smoking patients and their authorized suppliers shouldn't be targeted for federal prosecution in states that allow the drug for medicinal purposes.

Officials say it's not a good use of prosecutors' time... Although they say agents should pursue marijuana cases that involve violence, the illegal use of firearms, selling pot to minors, money laundering or other crimes.

Supporters say marijuana helps treat chronic pain, nausea and other illnesses... while critics say this move is a step backward in the fight against Mexican drug cartels.

14 states currently allow some use of marijuana for medical reasons. California is especially known for having pot shops everywhere.

A new Gallup poll shows support for legalizing marijuana has shot up in the last few years to 44 percent. 54 percent are opposed. Support for legalizing weed had been fixed at around 25 percent from the late 70s through the mid-90s.

Liberals and younger people are more likely to favor decriminalizing pot... no surprise there... while conservatives and seniors are more likely to be against it.

Gallup suggests that if public support continues growing at the same rate - the majority of Americans could favor legalizing the drug in the next few years. California voters may get to weigh in next year with a ballot initiative to legalize and tax marijuana as a revenue source.

Here’s my question to you:The federal government OKs medical marijuana. Is it the first step toward legalization?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

President Obama wants to send $250 dollars to 57 million Americans - including seniors, veterans and people with disabilities. 2010 will mark the first year that Social Security benefits don't increase in more than three decades. The cost-of-living adjustment for Social Security, in effect since 1975, is pegged to inflation; but since inflation was negative this year there won't be any increase.

The president says, "we must act on behalf of those hardest hit by this recession," and points to seniors and others who have seen their retirement accounts and home values plummet.

The $250 equals about a two percent increase in benefits for the average person getting Social Security.

It's backed by some key members in Congress. But other lawmakers don't think this is a good idea. The formula used to determine Social Security doesn't call for an increase.

Congress approved a similar $250 payment earlier this year as part of the economic stimulus package.

If it happens, it will cost an estimated $13 billion over 10 years. Mr. Obama says he wouldn't allow the payments to come out of the Social Security trust fund - which is already running in the red. But the president didn't say where the money would come from. Apparently he's open to borrowing the money. Which means it would be added to the deficit.

Here’s my question to you: Should the government pay seniors $250 to make up for no increase in Social Security next year?

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.

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

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

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Americans are mad as hell... and they're keeping both big business and government in the crosshairs. The Wall Street Journal reports that historically the public focuses its anger on either one institution or the other - but not this time.

On the one hand, people are frustrated with the Wall Street failures that led to this financial mess; and they're outraged at ongoing situations like bonus payouts at AIG. But Americans also see too much involvement by Congress and the federal government - accusing the administration of "socialism" and a "takeover" of the economy.

What's interesting here is some don't see government and business as opposing forces, rather they see "a unified elite pursuing one big swindle." For example - the government using hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayers' money to bail out banks and automakers.

This anger at both government and business is making it difficult for either Democrats or Republicans to connect with voters. A founder of one "tea party" group says the greatest movement within the tea party is "None of the above," a belief that lawmakers in both political parties aren't cutting it and need to be removed. People really do get it. The question I keep coming back to is: Why do we continue to re-elect incumbents?

Democrats say once their agenda is in place - it will prove they can solve problems and people won't distrust government as much. Talk is cheap. So far the Democrats don't have a lot to show for their control of the executive and legislative branches of government.

Here’s my question to you: At this point, do you have more faith in government or big business?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The writing seems to be on the wall for South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford - even if he refuses to read it. There's a growing chorus of voices in that state calling on the governor to just go away.

Sanford has been under fire ever since he went MIA for a week in June, lied about his whereabouts, and then resurfaced only to admit he wasn't hiking the Appalachian trail, but was in Argentina visiting his mistress. Since then he's been under investigation for his use of state resources.

The head of the Republican Party in South Carolina is expected to ask later today for a party resolution calling for Sanford's resignation. They voted in July to censure Sanford for "repeated failures to act in accordance" with the GOP's core beliefs. But they didn't ask him to step down then.

This comes just a day after a majority of the Republicans in the state House of Representatives wrote a letter to Sanford demanding his resignation... they say his actions have been "destructive to our state's image on a worldwide stage."

Among the 60 Republicans who signed the letter are several lawmakers who would play key roles in an impeachment process, which has also been talked about.

But Sanford isn't listening.. he called this letter "both unpersuasive and unsurprising," and said he won't be railroaded out of office by his political enemies.

A of couple weeks ago, Sanford also rejected his lieutenant governor's request that he resign for the good of the state.

Here’s my question to you: Why won't South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford go away?

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.

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's getting to the point where the White House has more "czars" than Russia used to have. The latest estimates put the number at 30. These special advisers are nothing new... many presidents have had them, including Republicans.

Van Jones served as Special Advisor for Green Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation in the White House Council on Environmental Quality from March until earlier this month.

The "czars" work on issues ranging from health care to Middle East peace. But - the problem is how many President Obama has - combined with the fact that they're not subject to congressional oversight or Senate confirmation.

Republicans were already steamed about this - but now it's boiling over with the resignation over the weekend of the president's green jobs czar. Van Jones quit under pressure from many of his past statements and affiliations. He was on the record referring to Republicans using a vulgar collective noun; and he signed a petition calling for an investigation into a 9/11 cover-up by the federal government.

It's all just more ammunition for Republicans to go after President Obama. And it's yet another political miscalculation by the president.

One Republican calls the number of czars in the Obama White House an "affront to the Constitution"... and another GOP lawmaker has called on the president to suspend any future czar positions until Congress can check out those already in place... But that hasn't stopped President Obama... who just yesterday appointed an auto czar.

Democrats say the number of czars isn't the issue... because all administrations have them. The problem is no one apparently vets these people very well until it's too late and a Van Jones manages to embarrass the entire administration. Sort of like nominating people to cabinet posts who didn't bother to pay their taxes.

Here’s my question to you: Are White House "czars" a good idea?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The death of Ted Kennedy marks the passing of an era.

The senator from Massachusetts was the last of the four Kennedy brothers to die - all of them serving their country. Joe Jr. died as a World War II pilot. John was a congressman, senator and president before being assassinated. Bobby, a U.S. attorney general, senator from New York and a presidential candidate at the time of his assassination.

Robert F. Kennedy, Ted Kennedy and John F. Kennedy are pictured on Jan.1, 1962

Ted Kennedy, the youngest of nine siblings, is the only brother to live past the age of 50; and many believe that as the survivor, he will be the one who leaves the most significant impact on this country. Kennedy - who served 46 years in the Senate - was a staunch liberal but also known for reaching out across the aisle. He was a champion for issues like civil rights, health care, education, voting rights and labor.

The Kennedy family has been an endless source of fascination for the American people for decades. To many - the Kennedys are the closest thing to royalty we have. And the family has offered glamour, the "Camelot" mystique, hope and idealism.

But along with high political ambitions and success for the Kennedys has also come great low points, tragedies and untimely deaths: the two assassinations, Ted Kennedy's nearly fatal plane crash along with his infamous incident at Chappaquiddick, John Jr.'s fatal plane crash... and numerous substance abuse and marital problems.

Here’s my question to you: Why did America remain fascinated with the Kennedy brothers for more than 50 years?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

On August 17, Chicago held a reduced-service day. City Hall, public libraries, health clinics and most other city offices were closed in efforts to save money. (PHOTO CREDIT: Scott Olson/GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Rhode Island plans to shut down the state government for 12 days as a way of dealing with severe financial problems.

The plan, laid out by Governor Don Carcieri, is expected to save $22 million in a state struggling with a 12.7 percent unemployment rate and the loss of hundreds of millions of dollars in tax collections as a result of the economic recession.

The plan is for 81 percent of the state workforce to stay home without pay one day a month for 12 months. The first day is scheduled for next week.

The Governor said there is no other option. He said he would consider other ideas if they could also save $22 million. He said the state can't lay off anymore employees since positions were cut last year and he has ruled out a tax increase.

Essential employees, including prison guards and state police, will work on these days.

Rhode Island isn't the first state to make this kind of move. At least 19 other states have furloughed employees or considered doing so in order to survive the current economic crisis.

In Maryland, state employees will be forced to take as many as 10 days without pay and 200 will be fired and left to spend every day off until they can find another job.

And in California, state employees had been forced to take every other Friday off and a third Friday was added to that this summer.

The workload presumably remains the same as people are getting a day less of pay. Probably doesn't do much for morale.

Here’s my question to you: Should periodic government shutdowns become a permanent way to save money?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Attorney General Eric Holder has named a federal prosecutor to investigate allegations of torture by the CIA. This coincides with the release of the 2004 Inspector General's report of CIA interrogation tactics including waterboarding, staging mock executions, and threatening suspects with guns, power drills, and the safety of their family members.

Attorney General Eric Holder

It also mentions moving detainees to prisons in countries where torture is practiced. A redacted version of the report was first released after the ACLU sued last year but clearly the details were in the redacted sections.

This is all happening as the President announced a change in intelligence gathering - shifting the responsibility for terrorism interrogations to the FBI and away from the CIA.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney has said all along the Inspector General's report would prove that interrogation tactics were successful in obtaining useful information from detainees that prevented additional attacks on the U.S. He says we should be praising the people responsible for conducting these interrogations. Cheney is also raising questions about the Obama Administration's ability to protect Americans.

Nine Republican lawmakers have sent a letter to the Attorney General urging him not to launch a criminal investigation because it would jeopardize "security for all Americans, chill future intelligence activities," and could "leave us more vulnerable to attack."

The point of the investigation is to determine if laws were broken. For most people, when a law is broken there are consequences. The question remains whether the people who authorized all this stuff will ever be held accountable.

Here’s my question to you: Is naming a special prosecutor to investigate torture a good idea?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Former Secretary of Homeland Security, Tom Ridge, is taking his turn talking about his time served in George W. Bush's White House. In his new book, "The Test of Our Times," Ridge says he successfully squashed a plan to raise the nation's terror alert level to orange or "high," on the eve of the 2004 election.

Ridge says the push from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and Attorney General John Ashcroft was based on a pre-election message on tape from Osama bin Laden.

Ridge writes that he felt the message alone did not warrant the increased threat level and points out that there was no additional intelligence information indicating an increased likelihood of a terrorist attack. He also says increased security measures were already in place for the election. He writes, "I wondered, is this about security or politics?"

During the 2004 election one in five voters said terrorism was the most important issue to them, according to exit polls.

Ridge was able to help convince a group of other officials that there was no reason to cause what he calls, "undue public alarm" and in the end the threat level was not raised.

He said the incident was one of the major reasons he eventually decided to step down from public service.

Here’s my question to you: Do you think the government would try to manipulate the public's fear of terrorism for political gain?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Read the rest of this entry »