Jack is out of the Situation Room.

He’ll be back Monday, January 4.

Happy Holidays from the Cafferty File!

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The holidays are upon us - traditionally a time spent with our families, friends and loved ones… intimate gatherings in our homes, which give us all a chance to reconnect. And maybe the need for that is greater than it's ever been.

Here are a few statistics that might be something for us all to think about:

There are 270 million cell phone subscribers who sent more than 110 billion text messages last December - that was double the number sent a year earlier. The average teenager sends more than 2,000 text messages every month.

At the same time - the average length of a cell phone call declined last year. The problem is, this is all stuff we mostly do alone.

We spend five hours a day watching television… and another two hours on the computer…

Walk down the street in any city in America and notice how many of us never see our surroundings. Our faces are buried in personal communication devices - At the expense of seeing someone smile as they pass you - of noticing someone who might be in need - or of missing something like a changing street light that can actually put you in danger.

It doesn't seem to be a big deal now but my guess is in 20 or 30 years we won't recognize ourselves because of the effect all of this has had.

That we will be different is certain. Whether we'll be better off is very much an open question…

Here’s my question to you: At what cost is technology replacing personal contact?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Laura writes:
So much is lost in communication through technology: tone of voice, body language, facial expressions, even signals sent through our skin. It's easier to lie through technology, and sometimes I even feel more disconnected from the person than if I weren't talking to them at all.

Pete writes:
Jack, You and I are about the same age. Times they are a changin’. Get over it.

Christine (from Oxford University Press) writes:
When Oxford lexicographers selected "unfriend" as the 2009 Word of the Year, it was because of the indisputable cultural imprint that the word has left on the past year. An entire generation is coming of age in a time when even friendship is a function of our technology. A pretty sobering observation, don't you think?

Nancy who’s an American in Scotland writes:
Jack, I think the kids are fine. Texting is a fad, and eventually it will pass. Modern technology means that everyone can be informed and educated; I am not worried about the kids and technology. I am worried about parents not having time for their kids, working all the hours God gives. It is us old folks that don't have enough conversations. Teach a Grandfather near you to text!

Diane writes:
I am sitting with a colleague right now and we are both on our phones instead of interacting with each other. Yes, technology is taking the place of human interface.

Ken writes:
I will tell you the cost: last night I saw a story in the news where a man married an Avatar online. Got the point?

John from New Jersey writes:
It's not costing anything. You sound like you’re getting old and cranky, just like the nay-sayers when the telephone came out. You need some time off. I'll Google spas in Amish country for you.

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It happened quietly at the White House this week - almost like they didn't want us to notice:

President Obama signed a $1.1 trillion spending bill which increases budgets in many federal agencies by about 10-percent.

The bill includes almost $450 billion for the operating budgets of different departments. Among those seeing increases: The FBI, the Veterans Health Administration and the National Institutes of Health.

Democrats say this spending is critical in order to help the economy out of the recession. But Republicans are slamming what they call out-of-control spending - and criticizing about $4 billion going to more than 5,000 earmarks requested by individual lawmakers.

Doesn't exactly sound like the change President Obama promised, does it?

One watchdog group says the earmark projects include the construction of a Kentucky Farmer's market, the renovation of a historic theater in New York and the restoration of a Rhode Island mill.

The bill also approves a 2 percent pay increase for federal workers.

Meanwhile the 50 million Americans receiving Social Security won't be getting any increase next year - for the first time in more than 3 decades.

So nothing for the country's seniors... but there's always money for more government.

Here’s my question to you: Do some federal agencies deserve a 10-percent budget increase when people on Social Security get no increase at all?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Kevin from Lunenberg, Massachusetts writes:
I think a little shared sacrifice is in order here like budget cuts, pay freezes and furloughs for all government workers including Congress. That would go a long way towards telling people they are not alone and that their government feels their pain. But after all this is Washington, what was I thinking?

Joe writes:
What irritates me more about this are the earmarks attached to the bill, which is something the president promised he would end, and the fact that (much like when Congress votes to increase their own salaries) the bill was passed "quietly." So much for transparency and responsible government.

Remo from Pflugerville, Texas writes:
Transparency? How about slight of hand? I think the "Hope" is now "Nope"! Nope to jobs, spending, refinancing of mortgages, honest politicians, and promises. At least now, everyone's gotten the idea that it's business as usual. The only good president is a one-term president. This president couldn't lead himself out of the men's room without a committee and 4 weeks of talk.

Raul from Texas writes:
Absolutely not! I am a federal employee. This is just wrong in times like these when the economy is big-time in a depression. When is our government going to learn that there is a spending limit? The elderly deserved a cost of living increase, not the Feds.

Tom writes:
Elderly and disabled people on Social Security should get an increase before any able-bodied people. People who work have the option to work over time or a second job to increase income; the elderly and disabled do not have this option. Let’s take care of our aging population, not hammer an extra nail in the coffin.

Jim from Georgia writes:
Jack, What kind of question is that? You sound like my wife: "Why are we spending money painting the house when I need more shoes?" We do have to run the government I think, don't we?

George writes:
I'm on Social Security. Need you really ask how I feel?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Choosing your child's gender is becoming more and more mainstream in the United States.

It's done by using a technology called pre-implantation genetic diagnosis - which was developed two decades ago to screen embryos for genetic diseases. Parents using in vitro-fertilization have the embryos screened to make sure they're not passing along genetic illnesses.

But the same screening can also be used to select the gender of the embryo that's implanted in the mother's uterus.

In most countries it's illegal, but not here in the land of instant gratification. It costs about $18,000.

Experts say most of the clients come from other countries; but that a lot of the Americans using this technology for gender selection already have a boy and want a girl - or vice versa.

Critics worry about the ethics of it all… is this really stuff we should be playing around with? And they suggest it could lead to a gender imbalance - especially in countries that traditionally prefer boys - places like China or India.

A doctor who pioneered this technique says he worries about using it to screen embryos for non-scientific reasons - asking if it's something doctors should be involved in.

But other fertility doctors see nothing wrong with it and say it's just another example of giving women more reproductive choices.

Here’s my question to you: Would you choose your child’s gender?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Renee writes:
I am a proud mother of 6 healthy boys and I have always wanted to have a daughter. I am still young and I'm in good health. If my financial situation was better and I were able to afford it, I would definitely choose the gender of my child. I would have stopped at 2 kids if I had a girl and a boy, but I always held out a little hope that the next one would be a girl.

Thad writes:
It’s a tough decision. It touches me personally because I have three daughters and I surely want a son. Using conventional ways and statistics I am almost guaranteed another girl. I am all for it.

Dale writes:
When you see the pure evil of gender selection in China and India you can't help but have a healthy aversion to the practice. I am a man but see this as yet another tool to devalue women in society by some groups. I understand the desire to have one of each or even two of the same but I do not think we should have the right. The real consequences are immoral.

Lou writes:
I'll be for creating designer babies just as soon as children have the right to pick qualities they like in parents. My dad would have loved having another boy rather than my little sister, but we both would have been equally happy to trade him in for a less alcoholic model.

D. writes:
When people have too many choices, they often make bad ones.

Darren writes:
What comes after that: picking which annoying genetic traits their child won't have?

Diana from New Jersey writes:
After having 3 daughters and 2 sons, I sure would: All my girls give me gray hair, acid indigestion and sleepless nights. I would have all sons or puppies instead.

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Picture enough books to bury the entire United States under a pile seven feet deep. That's how much information we consumed last year.

A new study shows that residents of the U.S. consumed 1.3 trillion hours worth of information last year - that includes everything from computers to TV, radio, cell phones, text messaging, video games, movies, books, newspapers, magazines, you name it.

That averages out to almost 12 hours spent daily by every person - and this doesn't even include the information you soak up at work. It's just mind boggling and represents a 350-percent increase from 30 years ago.

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego found that people get most of their information from television... followed by radio, the internet, video games and reading.

And a lot of these things happen at the same time, you know… multi-tasking, people talking on the phone while e-mailing... or text messaging while watching TV.

It's so bad that people don't even look where they're going anymore. They walk down the street with their noses buried in some hand-held device, oblivious to what's going on around them. Or worse, they do it while they're driving. They also sleep with them by their bedside and use them in the bathroom.

We live in a society where it's nearly impossible to turn the information off - it comes at us wherever we are.

Here’s my question to you: Is there such a thing as too much information?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Michael writes:
No, TMI no longer exists. However it's all about Quality now over Quantity. Even as I write this, I am using Google Reader tracking several other different news feeds, checking my Facebook and waiting for Twitter updates, while watching CNN on the television and waiting for text messages on my phone. And I am 32 years old. I could imagine what my daughter will be able to handle in the way of information by the time she gets to my age.

Lia from Bradenton writes:
Nope, an informed public is one that is best equipped to guard its freedom. What we do need are people who can logically evaluate the quality of the data and sources that they invite into their lives each hour.

Andrew from Los Angeles writes:
The inane garbage most of us send and receive on our mobile devices can hardly be considered "information." If those trillions of hours were spent consuming meaningful, stimulating information I wouldn't be so bothered by the stranglehold technology has over our lives.

Dan from Santa Barbara, California writes:
I'm still not sure what you mean by that. Can you upload an instructional video so I can Tweet my reaction to my college instructor who can in turn let me know if I have a valid point before I respond? I'll text you.

Tim from Crown Point, Indiana writes:
Gosh, are you crabby. Every time I watch you, you're complaining about something. Lighten up!

Katherine writes:
Jackie-me-boy, Your latest gripe is one I have had for years – and reminds me of a great bumper sticker I saw here in the Metro Boston area several years ago: Hang up and drive!

Janice writes:
Anything about Sarah Palin is too much information.

Randy from Salt Lake City writes:
No way, Jack! I'm anxiously awaiting the day when I will no longer have to carry around a Blackberry or blue tooth, but instead will have an internet/communications device surgically implanted in my head. My goal is to become a robot!

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Here we go again... Five Transportation Security Administration employees are now on "administrative leave" after a sensitive airport security manual was posted on the Internet.

Here's some of what was revealed:

• Who is exempt from certain additional screening measures

• Examples of identification documents that screeners accept

• And details of the screening process and the limitations of x-ray machines.

This comes weeks after three Secret Service officers were put on leave while that agency investigates how it allowed those two morons to crash a White House State Dinner.

Government employees who are found compromising national security are placed on "administrative leave." Gee... give me some of that. They sit home and do nothing while they continue to collect their paychecks. That's some "punishment." We have 10-percent unemployment in this country - yet try firing a government employee for anything short of a felony conviction. Can't be done.

They're protected, they know it, and as a result sometimes they just don't try very hard. Look anywhere from your local city hall to Washington, DC: Government is rife with complacency, inefficiency, and in some cases - downright arrogance.

I bet some of the 16-million unemployed would jump at the chance to get one of those jobs and would approach it with a little more enthusiasm and professionalism.

Here’s my question to you: Are government workers at every level accountable enough?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Doug from Dallas writes:
No they're not, unless you count contempt as a virtue. They tend to treat the average American, their boss, as idiots and act like they can do no wrong – and if they do, it's no big deal. I guess that comes from knowing you can't be fired. There is no accountability so they just thumb their noses at us while we continue to pay them.

Chip from Celina, Ohio writes:
Jack, The saying, "Close enough for government work", exists for a reason. You've hit the nail on the head. You're right on the money as far as firing someone too. Not all employees are lazy and inefficient, but a large enough percentage are… My dad worked in the government and was trying to fire someone he supervised. After about a year of paperwork and trying to build a "federal" case, he just decided it would be easier to let it go three more years until the guy retired. Sad.

Paul writes:
My father worked for the government for 35 years. He and his colleagues were competent, dedicated and enterprising. Jack, think how you worded your careless statement about government workers, full of generalities and attacks.

Bill from Atlanta writes:
As we head more and more toward socialism, just keep in mind what great service you currently receive from all of the government institutions and programs and think how wonderful it will be when the government gets more involved in your life.

Marber writes:
As one who worked for government for 25+ years and saw the incompetence and lack of work ethic in too many of the employees who I worked along side of, I can attest to the fact that they are overprotected from discipline and firing. They have more job protection that do union members.

Dave writes:
Jack, Your TSA story illustrates exactly why we do not need a government run health care system. It would just be filled with more unaccountable bureaucrats!

(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the Tiger Woods scandal continues to grow like a Chia pet on steroids, here's the latest:

• Reports put the number of alleged mistresses at eleven and counting

• Documents from the night of the crash show investigators suspected that Woods may have been driving under the influence

• According to Nielsen, television ads featuring Woods have disappeared from prime-time broadcast TV and many cable channels

Woods makes $110 million a year from endorsements and tournaments... and in part he was selling an image. But that image has sustained more damage in the last two weeks than his Cadillac Escalade: One index that measures how celebrities influence shoppers shows Woods' ranking dropping from sixth to 24th place.

This makes Tiger Woods the latest in a long line of public figures - almost always men - who work hard to build successful lives and careers only to turn around and throw it all in a garbage can.

The website PoliticsDaily.com has a piece called "The Last Tiger Woods Question" that asks: "Why did he think he wouldn't get caught?" We all know the drill... from Bill Clinton to Eliot Spitzer, Rudy Giuliani, John Edwards and South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford... people who are so controlled and accomplished in other areas of their lives, yet risk it all.

Experts say a lot of times these men simply don't think - that lust makes people irrational. Or, they think they're smarter, or somehow different or the woman in question is special, or they know other men who got away with it and think they can too. Wrong.

Here’s my question to you: Why do some successful people choose to throw it all away?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

B. from Chicago writes:
When a man or a woman decides to break a promise, they sacrifice their moral code, their integrity. Breaking your vows to a spouse is a decision, not an irrational act. To paraphrase J.R. Ewing, "Once you lose your integrity, the rest is easy."

Those who cheat on their spouse don't choose to throw it all away, since when they decide to break their promises, they believe they can't be caught. And since their integrity is gone, lying to cover-up is easy.

Jamie from Plantation, Florida writes:
Throwing "it all" away implies that there is some intense worth to those things – fame, money, power – and that the loss of "it all" is a bad thing. The truth of the matter is that happiness is not always directly linked to those things that we tend to hold in highest regard in this society. Large, close families with multiple generations working together and spending time together tend to be happier than the average person.

Larry writes:
Successful people are, after all, just people. They do the same things that other people do. They don't choose to throw everything away. They just behave like the rest of us, and suffer more when we all find out about it.

David writes:
Survivor syndrome. Most understand they don't deserve what they have and the guilt drives them to destruction. Then on the other hand, you have the ones who think they created the universe and it is theirs to do with as they please.

Jay from Flemingsburg, Kentucky writes:
Tiger was never allowed to live like a normal kid; all he has ever known is golf. Also, he accumulated great wealth at an age when he didn’t know how to deal with it. He was destined to have many problems in his life.

Al from Plant City, Florida writes:
Jack, You can't be serious. I'll give you one guess.

Morgan Stanley is one of ten lenders that won U.S. Treasury approval to pay back $68 billion in funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program (TARP). (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Despite record deficits, President Obama wants to spend more money to create jobs and try to ease the suffering of consumers and businesses.

The president's plan includes:

• Giving small businesses tax breaks for new hires and equipment purchases

• Expanding spending on infrastructure - building more roads, bridges water projects, etc.

• And giving consumers rebates for modifying their homes to consume less energy.

The president didn't put a price tag on all these projects, but he suggested there's more money for the government to spend - since the TARP bailouts will wind up costing $200 billion less than expected.

Republicans are outraged at the idea of spending any of this TARP money - they say any money made back on the bailout of financial institutions should be used to pay down the skyrocketing national debt.

President Obama insists the U.S. can do both at the same time - pay down the debt and spend more to create jobs and spur economic growth.

Meanwhile there is an ominous warning out today about our ballooning national debt - now at $12 trillion and growing. Moody's credit rating agency says it's "not inconceivable" that the U.S. could lose its triple-A debt rating in 2013.

It could happen if U.S. growth slows, interest rates climb, and the government fails to address the growing national deficits - which the government is currently failing to do.

Here’s my question to you: What should be done with the leftover $200 billion of TARP money?

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:

Despite all the hoopla over the Senate Finance Committee vote, there is still a very long way to go before health care reform becomes a reality. President Obama applauded Senator Olympia Snowe for becoming the first Republican to break ranks and vote for health care reform - but the truth is Snowe is keeping her options open.

Senate Finance Committee member Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME) talks with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) before announcing her support for key health care reform legislation.

Her support sounded pretty conditional when she said: "My vote today is my vote today. It doesn't forecast what my vote will be tomorrow."

And another centrist in the Senate, Independent Joe Lieberman, said he opposes the bill the way it is now because it would raise insurance prices for most Americans.

Meanwhile a group of almost 30 labor unions is warning that the Senate finance committee bill is deeply flawed. They say they'll oppose it - unless they see come changes. Big labor, a key Democratic constituency, is insisting a public health insurance plan is essential to reform.

And they're not the only ones... as the Senate committee passed its bill without a public option, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stood on the other side of the Capitol still insisting the House would pass a bill with one. Pelosi also says a bill will pass "certainly this year."

Really? There's a lot of people who still aren't on board and a lot of legislative steps to go. At the end of the day - a committee vote does not a health care reform law make.

Here’s my question to you: How confident are you there will be meaningful health care reform before the end of the year?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Katja from Bradenton, Florida writes:
Hi Jack. No, nothing is going to happen. What we are going to get is the same old thing we always get: nothing. Insurance companies will continue as they are, the uninsured will remain that way, and those "wonderful" politicians with their designer suits and dresses, really great insurance and really large egos, will continue to get paid for doing nothing.

Sylvia from California writes:
Jack, There will be reform – whether it will be "meaningful" is yet to be seen. Whenever the government sticks its nose into anything, the word "meaningful" does not come into play.

Jerry from Jacksonville, Florida writes:
Jack, I'll bet you anything that there won't be a health reform bill this year and if there is, it won't be worth the paper that it is written on. Unless there is a public health option, there is no bill worth a damn. It will just be another way for the insurance companies to raise rates at the expense of the policy holders. The American people lose again.

Peter writes:
I am very confident. Speaker Nancy Pelosi is right on. She and Nobel Laureate Pres. Obama will do it.

Figueroa writes:
Jack, I find it difficult to find the words: I drank gallons of the hope-laced Kool-Aid last year. We did our part. We elected huge majorities of these so-called Democrats that now refuse to tow one of the most fundamental and important Democratic party lines. What else can we do? We completely set them up for a long-awaited success for the American people. They are pissing it away, and I for one am pissed off!

Pete from Augusta, Georgia writes:
Jack, About as confident as I am about the Chicago Cubs winning the World Series. Wait until next year!

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Distracted drivers are a deadly threat... and this includes anyone talking on cell phones, texting, eating, putting on make-up, etc. while behind the wheel of a moving vehicle. It's estimated that 6,000 people were killed - and more than half a million injured - in 2008 in crashes involving a distracted or inattentive driver.

One study shows 80 percent of crashes are related to drivers not paying attention... and people using handheld devices are four times as likely to get in crashes that could result in injury.

Safety advocates say they're especially worried about young people... saying that some of the kids learning to drive now text 5,000 times a month. This is scary.

Washington wants people to take this threat more seriously... there's one Senate bill that would reduce federal highway funding for states that don't ban texting while driving.

President Obama signed an executive order that bans federal employees from texting while behind the wheel. The government also plans to ban texting by bus drivers and truckers who cross state lines; and possibly prevent them from using cell phones while driving. Hundreds of companies have already banned employees from using cell phones while driving.

The problem is - there's no enforcement. I see literally dozens of people yakking away on cell phones in cars every day on my ride into work from New Jersey. They change lanes, slam on their brakes, swerve all over the road... all while lost in their own little worlds on their cell phones.

Want to get serious? Yank their drivers' licenses - permanently - if they cause an accident while driving distracted.

Here’s my question to you: What’s the answer to people who insist on driving while doing other things?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

Bob from Houston writes:
Automobiles could be made with shields in the roofs that block the ability of the cell phone to get through to the signal or some sort of device in the dashboard that interferes with the cell phone's ability to get through to the signal once the engine is turned on. How about a device that renders the cell phone useless once the car's speed exceeds 5 mph? Use technology to make people get off the road and stop the car if they want to use their cell phones while inside a car.

Bob writes:
The cell phone problem is easy. The cops should take the phone and mail it to our troops. Second offense: take the car. There is a section in most vehicle codes for unsafe driving that covers the rest of what drivers do. Problem is enforcement and what the judges do about it.

Ron writes:
Any time a collision occurs, one of the routine checks should be whether the driver has a cell phone number and, if so, whether that phone was in use at the time of the collision. If so, the driver on the phone should be charged will full responsibility for the accident, including all damages and possible criminal charges such as vehicular assault, homicide, etc. If both drivers are using mobile devices, they share the charges equally.

Sean from Phoenix writes:
In Maricopa County, Arizona, you know, the county with the "toughest sheriff in America", if you're stopped while driving on a suspended license, the police take you to jail – even though your stay is just under 24 hours. They don't have to take you, but it is done to prove a point. The same should apply to these drivers who put the rest of us in danger and I bet we'd start seeing change. Lock 'em up!

Bill writes:
How come it's taking so long for all cars to be fitted with ways for communication to be sent to the driver without the use of their hands? If I could get my text messages on my windshield and be able to speak my response and have it sent back as a text then I wouldn't have to struggle to tell my boss I'm late because I'm stuck behind Jack Cafferty taking his sweet time cruising into work.