FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With Memorial Day weekend - and the unofficial start to summer - just around the corner, many Americans have no vacation time in sight.

A recent study shows 57% of working Americans had unused vacation time at the end of last year.

And most of them had about 11 days left over, or nearly 70% of their allotted time off. Who takes only 30% of their vacation?

Well, one of the biggest reasons people skip their vacation is because they feel like they have too much work. Others say they can't afford to travel - no surprise in this economy. And still others say they are afraid to take time off from work in an unstable job market, also not surprising with unemployment stuck above 8%.

Meanwhile, the U.S. plays by different rules than most other developed countries when it comes to vacation. The law here doesn't require companies to offer any paid vacation to employees.

Nevertheless the average American worker gets 13 paid days off. Compare that with Italy, where the average worker gets 42 days off. In France, it’s 37 days off.

And guess what? Nearly 90% of the French use all of their vacation time. Insert your own joke here.

Experts say a lot of this is cultural. Many of these countries also have strong labor unions. Some European cities, such as Paris, practically shut down for part of the summer when everyone goes on vacation.

As for Americans, the trend is for people to take long weekends instead of one- or two-week vacations.

It's understandable that people are worried to leave the office for too long in our shaky economy; but it does make it harder to recharge your batteries and get a mental break from work.

Here’s my question to you: Why don't most Americans take all their vacation time?

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:

President Barack Obama is under fire for adding his own policy plugs to the official biographies of past presidents on the White House website.

Here's how it works: The White House added blurbs to the end of these biographies. These "Hey, did you know?" factoids appear on nearly every president's bio page going back to Calvin Coolidge.

For example:

"In a June 28, 1985, speech, Reagan called for a fairer tax code, one where a multimillionaire did not have a lower tax rate than his secretary. Today, President Obama is calling for the same with the Buffett Rule."

These added links plug everything from Obama’s health care overhaul to Social Security, Medicare and the repeal of don't ask, don't tell.

Republicans are having a field day with this.

The RNC created a hysterical "Obama in History" website. It shows the president as part of other historical events like the moon landing and the Declaration of Independence and with historical figures such as Albert Einstein, Richard Nixon and Elvis.

The White House insists that the biographies themselves weren't changed. They tell Fox News they "simply added links at the bottom of each page." They say this is a commonly used Internet practice to encourage people to explore further.

Maybe so.

However, one expert tells ABC News that while these additions didn't "cross the line" by changing the presidential biographies, the White House could have made it clearer that they weren't part of the official White House presidential biographies.

Here’s my question to you: Is it appropriate for President Obama to change the official biography pages of past presidents on the White House website?

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:

Yet another sign that our education system is failing:

Florida is lowering the passing grade on the writing portion of a standardized test.

Students' 2012 scores plunged on the Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test writing exam.

Only 27% of fourth graders scored a passing grade of 4 - out of a possible 6.

Last year 81% of fourth graders passed. Eighth and 10th graders had similar declines in their scores.

So the state Board of Education decided to change the test's passing score to a 3 - from a 4. Presto. Suddenly the number of kids who passed was about the same as last year.

Critics say by manipulating test results, Florida is covering up problems in the system. It has also reignited an ongoing debate over using standardized test scores to make important education decisions.

The state education commissioner defends the decision, saying it "helps to correct the process, not the results."

Schools and parents were told this was coming. Florida announced last summer there would be tougher grading for the writing exam - with more focus on spelling, grammar and punctuation. In the past, those issues had been graded with "leniency."

State officials say they may not have communicated those changes well to school districts and teachers.

It kind of makes you wonder how Florida graded these writing exams before the increased focus on little things like spelling and grammar.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about U.S. education if Florida lowered the passing grade on a standardized test after students' scores dropped?

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.</strong5

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Drones aren't just for fighting the war on terror in the Middle East anymore - they might be watching you.

As more and more of these unmanned aircraft pop up over U.S. soil, they may be used to spy on Americans.

There is an Air Force document that says if unmanned drones accidentally capture surveillance footage of Americans, they can keep the information for up to 90 days and analyze it. Where is that in the Constitution?

The U.S. military and the government aren't supposed to conduct surveillance of Americans on U.S. soil without their consent, but if they accidentally capture you on video, that's OK.

They can apparently hang on to that material to determine if you are a terrorist.

There's no question that spying on Americans without a warrant could, and should, raise some serious red flags. But when you allow something like the Patriot Act, the law of unintended consequences is likely to follow.

Make no mistake, drone use is expanding on the home front.

Regulators have approved the use of drones for dozens of law enforcement agencies and universities, including the Department of Homeland Security and local police departments.

These drones can be used for law enforcement, firefighting, news coverage and monitoring wildlife. Or to spy on American citizens.

Lawmakers from both parties have asked the FAA to answer questions about privacy, to make sure the public knows these things are being used and why.

Experts predict the use of drones domestically will increase as more of the technology is brought back from places like Afghanistan, Pakistan and Yemen.

Here’s my question to you: Should drones be used to spy on Americans?

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:

A dramatic warning about just how fat Americans are getting: By 2030, 42% of people in the United States will be obese. Yes, 42%.

According to a new study, 11% of them will be severely obese, meaning that they are 100 or more pounds over a healthy weight.

Already in 2010, 36% of adults are obese, or roughly 30 pounds over a healthy weight, and 6% are severely obese.

If the obesity rate increases as predicted, it could mean we'd have more than 100 million obese people in the U.S. in just 18 years.

The numbers are staggering, and they come with a huge price tag.

This report in the American Journal of Preventive Medicine suggests the increase in obesity would cost an additional $550 billion from now until 2030 in medical expenditures.

It's estimated an obese person costs at least $1,400 more in medical expenses per year than someone who has a healthy weight.

Carrying around all that fat increases your risk for many other diseases, including diabetes, heart disease, several types of cancer and sleep apnea, not to mention a shorter life expectancy.

Obesity is one of the biggest reasons why health care spending has been skyrocketing in the last 20 years.

The report’s authors say we have an environment in the U.S. that promotes obesity, with fast-food chains, cheap junk food and technologies, like the Internet, that keep people sitting at home and at their offices all day long.

Meanwhile, this study doesn't even address children. Currently, one out of every three children in the United States is obese or overweight.

Here’s my question to you: Where is the U.S. headed if 42% of us are obese by 2030?

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:

It's the end of the world as we know it - at least for one in seven people worldwide.

A new poll conducted for Reuters shows nearly 15% of people believe the world will end during their lifetime.

And 10% think the end could come as soon as this year - that's based on the end of the 5,100-year-old Mayan calendar that arrives on December 21, 2012.

Pollsters questioned more than 16,000 people in more than 20 countries. It turns out predictions of doom and gloom vary widely depending on where you live.

Only 6% of the French and 8% of the British fear Armageddon in their lifetime compared to 22% in Turkey and right here in the United States.

The Russians and the Poles were most likely to fear the end of the world as coming this year.

Experts say people under 35 and those with lower education or income are more likely to believe in an Apocalypse. Perhaps it’s because those over 35 have lived long enough not to worry about it.

Meanwhile, there have been many End of Days predictions over the years coming from the Chinese, the Egyptians, Native Americans, the Irish, etc.

But for some reason this Mayan Doomsday prediction has attracted millions, maybe even billions, of believers. Hundreds of thousands of websites have popped up devoted to the end-of-the-world fears.

However, experts - including NASA - say there's nothing to it and compare it to the Y2K scare which turned out to be much ado about nothing.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when one in seven people think the end of the world is coming?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The dysfunctional disaster that is Washington will only get worse after November's election.

Moderates are quickly becoming extinct - with Congressional Democrats and Republicans who represent the middle heading for the exits.

Politico reports on a study by political scientists that shows Congress is more polarized than at any time since reconstruction.

The sad part is our current political environment encourages the extremes: 24/7 cable news, Super Pac money, interest groups, activist blogs - they all cater to ideologues.

The big losers here: The American people. With the two parties too busy fighting to offer any real solutions to what's looming on the horizon.

And don't kid yourself - we're in trouble.

Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke is warning Congress that the Fed won't be able to undo the damage to the economy if lawmakers mismanage the fiscal cliff.

This so-called fiscal cliff represents $7 trillion worth of tax increases and spending cuts that will be triggered by year's end - if Congress doesn't act.
$7 trillion.

None of this will get addressed until after the election; at which point there will only be a few weeks to try to do something before the triggers kick in.

And then there's President Obama, who seems content to whistle past the graveyard while trying to get re-elected.

Mr. Obama is ignoring the big issues– from deficit reduction to Medicare, Social Security and government spending.

Instead the president is majoring in the minors - focusing on smaller, and more politically popular, things like the Buffett Rule, student loan rates and oil speculators.

It may help him win votes, but the country is on a collision course with disaster.

Here’s my question to you: Where's the leadership?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With college graduation season just around the corner, a lot of young people are already underwater.

Student loan debt tops a staggering $1 trillion, more than car loans or credit card debt.

It's estimated the average kid graduating from college owes more than $27,000, up 54% from a decade ago.

As a result, many students and recent graduates want their student loans partially, or fully, forgiven.

But that could open the door to the taxpayers getting stuck with yet another huge bailout.

In Washington, student loans have been a hot topic of debate this week, with President Obama pushing hard for Congress to prevent student loan interest rates from doubling to 6.8% as they're scheduled to on July 1.

House Speaker John Boehner says the House will vote on Friday to extend current rates for a year.

All this should make college students think long and hard about choosing what to study. With unemployment above 8%, if graduates can't find a job, they might very well have trouble paying off these loans.

A new study suggests students who major in subjects like health care, education, psychology, social work and business have a better shot at getting a job.

On the flip side, The Daily Beast reports the most useless college majors out there include fine arts, drama, architecture, graphic design, philosophy, religion, English, journalism, archaeology, music, history and political science.

Here’s my question to you: What's the most useless college major?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The immigration wars will heat up once again tomorrow.

When the Supreme Court hears oral arguments on the constitutionality of Arizona's controversial law.

It requires Arizona officials to check the immigration status of anyone stopped or arrested who they suspect is an illegal alien. But the Obama Administration sued to prevent it from going into effect.

Supporters say it's necessary because of the federal government's failure to secure the nation's borders. States like Arizona have had to deal with serious security issues along with the steep cost of education and health care for illegal aliens.

Critics say the law encourages racial profiling and forces state law enforcement to interfere with federal immigration policy.

The Supreme Court ruling is expected in June, which means like health care, it's sure to be a political hot potato headed into the election.

If the Supreme Court upholds the law, Senate Democrats are reportedly planning to force a vote on legislation that would invalidate Arizona's law.

Of course this has little chance of passing a divided Congress, but it's a way for Democrats to appeal to Hispanic voters before November.

Senate Democrats might be interested to learn most Americans agree with Arizona's approach. A new Quinnipiac Poll shows 68% approve of the Arizona law. Only 27% don't. And 62% say the Supreme Court should uphold the law.

Here’s my question to you: Should states have more to say about their own border security?

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:

Can you afford to get old?

In case you weren't already worried about your retirement, now comes word that it's getting more expensive to get old.

The International Monetary Fund says people around the world are living three years longer than expected. That's increasing the cost of aging by 50% - and governments and pension funds aren't ready for it.

Reuters reports the IMF study, coming out next week, shows that longevity is a bigger risk than previously thought.

Researchers say that if everyone in 2050 lived three years longer than now expected, society would need extra resources "equal to 1 to 2% of GDP per year."

In the United States alone, an extra three years of life would add 9% to private pension plan liabilities.

Life expectancy in the United States is approximately 78.5 years. According to the CIA World Factbook, the U.S. ranks 50th worldwide. At the top of the list is Monaco, where people live an average of almost 90 years, followed by countries like Macau, Japan and Singapore.

As medicine improves and standards of living go up in some of the developed countries, people continue to live longer. The IMF is calling on governments and the private sector to prepare now for those longer life spans.

Governments' options are fairly limited. Raise the retirement age, raise taxes to fund public pension plans, and lower benefits. A lot of countries are already considering doing all of this to tackle crippling national debts.

Another step governments could take would be to educate people on how to better prepare for their retirement.

Here’s my question to you: Can you afford to get old?

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.