Should Gov. Palin say how much she owes in back taxes?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Alaska Governor Sarah Palin owes back taxes on almost $17,000 she received from the state in per diem funds while living at her Wasilla home.
Palin's office won't say how much she owes, saying it is a personal matter.
The state decided this week that the payments were not legitimate business expenses and that employees must treat them as income subject to taxes.
You may remember the revelation of these payments became an issue in last year's campaign. It didn't exactly jive with Palin's so-called image as a government reformer. At the time, her office insisted she was entitled to the per diem payments.
Palin collected most of these payments before being named to the GOP ticket as John McCain's running mate. The expenses were paid when she stayed at her Wasilla home and commuted to her Anchorage office instead of staying in the governor's mansion in Juneau. The AP found that Palin continued to charge the state for meals and other incidentals after losing the general election in November.
Palin's office says they don't know if she's still collecting a per diem or will continue to do so. They claim her taxes are a personal matter and won't say how much she owes.
The Alaska Governor had also previously charged the state more than $21,000 for having her kids travel with her, saying they were acting on state business.
Here’s my question to you: Should Governor Sarah Palin have to disclose how much money she owes in back taxes?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should U.S. banks be nationalized?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty
The idea of nationalizing struggling U.S. banks is starting to pick up steam, even among some Republicans.
Some in Congress favor nationalizing the banking system.
Senator Lindsey Graham tells the Financial Times that many of his colleagues, including Senator John McCain, agree that nationalization of some banks should be "on the table." He says many people think it just doesn't make sense to keep throwing good money after bad when it comes to institutions like Citibank and Bank of America. Graham says people shouldn't get caught up on the word "nationalization" that we can't keep funding what he calls "zombie" banks without the public taking control.
Several people, including President Obama himself, have pointed out that's what the Japanese did, and they never really got credit flowing. The president has said he's leaning more toward the "Swedish model" – where they nationalized the banks and then auctioned them off once they were cleaned up.
The administration is opposed to nationalization in principle. Treasury Secretary Geithner has said "governments are terrible managers of bad assets", but the way things are going there may be no choice.
In fact, we are already on the road to nationalization when you consider how much money the government has already dumped into this nation's banks. According to the Treasury Department - about 400 banks in 47 states have gotten government aid since the program started in October.
And when the banks begin to report first quarter earnings in a few weeks, the decision may be made for us.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. to nationalize its banks?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
More money for GM and Chrysler?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Two of the Big Three American automakers are holding out their hands again for more of your taxpayer dollars.
Chrysler will discontinue the Dodge Durango, PT Cruiser and Chrysler Aspen.
General Motors and Chrysler say they need another $21.6 billion to stay afloat, this is in addition to the more than $17 billion they received a couple months ago. The companies have both put out plans for how they'll restructure in order to survive. I thought they were supposed to have already done that.
G.M. says it will cut 47,000 more workers, close 5 more plants in North America and cut half of its brands - Saturn, Pontiac, Hummer and Saab - leaving them with only Chevrolet, Buick, Cadillac and GMC. The company also says it's making headway in its talks with the United Auto Workers union and bondholders to find more ways to cut costs. Chrysler says it will cut another 3,000 jobs and discontinue 3 models - the Dodge Durango, PT Cruiser and Chrysler Aspen.
Meanwhile, this all puts the Obama administration in a tricky spot. Either they give the money and hope that the car companies don't come back asking for more in a few months. Or they say "no", which will probably force GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy. Both companies pointed out that the cost of a bankruptcy reorganization would be a whole lot steeper than their most recent loan requests.
The White House says it's reviewing the automakers' proposals and insists that "more will be required" from all parties involved to turn around their prospects.
The third Detroit company – Ford Motors – posted its biggest loss ever in the fourth quarter, but insists it can survive without government loans.
Here’s my question to you: Should General Motors and Chrysler be given additional taxpayer money?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
More troops to Afghanistan?
American soldiers search for caves concealing weapons in eastern Afghanistan. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama has decided to send another 17,000 U.S. troops to Afghanistan. More than 7 years into the war there, this move will increase U.S. troop levels by 50%. The president insists that "urgent attention and swift action" are needed to fight a resurgent Taliban and al Qaeda. The increased troop levels are expected to last 3 to 4 years.
American and NATO casualties – along with Taliban attacks- were at record highs last year. War-related civilian deaths were up almost 40%.
Although Mr. Obama hasn't made a call yet on troop cuts in Iraq, his decision will move troops to Afghanistan who had been scheduled to deploy to Iraq. The president has said he wants to limit objectives in Afghanistan. These new troops will be headed to southern and eastern regions, will help train the Afghan army and help provide security for the August elections.
The U.S. commander in Afghanistan had actually asked for more than 30,000 additional troops, which would have doubled the current force.
A tough decision – one of many – made by the new president these days, especially when you consider the public may not be behind escalating our military effort in Afghanistan. Recent polls shows 34% of Americans think the U.S. should send more troops there. 29% call for a decrease. Also, only 18% of Afghans think we should step up our presence – not exactly a warm welcome.
Here’s my question to you: Is a prolonged American military presence in Afghanistan a good idea?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Worried about losing your job?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. economy is hemorrhaging jobs. Almost 2 million have been lost in the last three months, but it turns out most Americans are not worried about losing their job.
Job seekers fill out applications at a California job fair.
A new USA Today-Gallup poll shows 68% of workers polled say they haven't been laid off in the last 6 months and aren't worried about getting a pink slip in the near future. Two percent say they have lost their job in that time - while 29% are worried about that happening. Also, 41% say they have family or close friends laid off in the last 6 months.
Meanwhile – there are some who suggest there can be an upside to losing your job. The Bishop of London says it actually might be a blessing in disguise. "Sometimes, people seem to be relieved to get off the treadmill and to be given an opportunity to reconsider what they really want out of life," said the bishop. He describes the so-called "crackberry" culture as being dangerously addictive.
The online magazine Mental Floss writes about 8 successful people who were actually grateful when they lost their jobs - including Jerry Seinfeld, Michael Bloomberg, Robert Redford and Bill Bellichick. After getting the boot from one gig, each of these folks was inspired to reach even higher levels of success.
Still, may not be totally convincing for the millions of Americans out of work and struggling to make ends meet.
Here’s my question to you: How concerned are you about losing your job?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should Senator Burris resign?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There's a growing chorus of voices who want to take a closer look at how Roland Burris was appointed to the U.S. Senate by now-ousted Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich.
Many officials in Illinois want to take a closer look at how Burris was appointed to the Senate.
An affidavit recently filed by Burris shows he had more extensive contact with the former governor's people than he previously acknowledged. The affidavit shows Burris spoke on several occasions with Blagojevich's brother, who hit him up for $10,000 in campaign money. Burris says he didn't raise or donate any money after June and insists there's nothing inconsistent in what he said during Blagojevich's impeachment trial and the affidavit. The Illinois senator says he has "absolutely nothing to hide" and that he'll testify in front of anyone to prove it.
But that might not cut it. Illinois Republicans started calling for a perjury investigation by a county prosecutor. And now Democrats are getting in on the action too. The Democratic Attorney General is calling the affidavit a "particularly frustrating revelation" and wants a deeper investigation into his actions.
Meanwhile, the Democrats on Capitol Hill have probably had their fill of this sideshow in Illinois. Majority Leader Harry Reid apparently knows about the affidavit and is looking into it. Reid's office says "clearly it would have been better" if Burris had provided this information when he first testified. No kidding.
Burris was appointed by Blagojevich 3 weeks after the governor was arrested on corruption charges, including an attempt to sell Obama's Senate seat.
Here’s my question to you: Should Roland Burris resign from the U.S. Senate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Stimulus bill too little too late?
It is not clear if the almost $790 billion in the stimulus bill will be enough to do the trick. (PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RALSTON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama may have signed that massive stimulus bill into law today, but the scary part is it's not clear if the almost $790 billion in government spending will be enough to do the trick.
The stock market tanked this morning, dropping 230 points in the first 90 minutes of trading. The stock market is now close to its lowest level in ten years. Investors are nervous that the stimulus plan won't have the kind of impact it needs to begin to turn the economy around. Wall Street also gave a thumbs down to Treasury Secretary Geithner's banking plan last week.
Then there's Detroit. GM and Chrysler are set to tell the government today how they plan to stay afloat, they've already gotten more than $17 billion in government loans. If they can't prove how they'll survive in the future, they may not get any more.
Some states are treading water even before the stimulus plan has a chance to trickle down to them. If California lawmakers don't pass a budget soon up to 20,000 state workers could lose their jobs. The state faces a $42 billion deficit and lawmakers can't seem to agree on a budget, particularly on more than $14 billion in tax increases. California may also halt nearly 300 state funded public works projects. That would mean more layoffs.
In Kansas, the state government has run out of money to pay its bills. They've suspended income tax refunds and may not be able to pay employees on time. Officials say the state might also have to delay payments to public schools and to doctors who provide care to the needy under Medicaid.
Here’s my question to you: Is the stimulus bill too little too late?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Regulating talk radio?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Former President Bill Clinton says when it comes to right-wing talk radio, it's time for "more balance" on the airwaves.
Former President Clinton thinks talk radio needs "more balance."
Clinton says the government should either bring back the "Fairness Doctrine" or have more programs that present the other side. "Because essentially there's always been a lot of big money to support the right wing talk shows and let's face it... Rush Limbaugh is fairly entertaining even when he is saying things that I think are ridiculous," said the former president.
This follows recent chatter from some Democratic Senators to possibly hold hearings on radio accountability, even though no one has scheduled them as of yet.
The Fairness Doctrine required broadcasters to air both sides of controversial topics. But in 1987, the FCC found it unconstitutional. Congressional Democrats tried to bring it back, but President Reagan vetoed that effort.
Several Democrats started talking about bringing back the Fairness Doctrine last fall, which worried Republicans and talk radio hosts. At the time then-Senator Obama said he didn't support the idea, saying it was a distraction to more pressing issues in the media business. I wonder how he feels now.
Nonetheless, just the possibility of hearings has been enough to get the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity buzzing.
Here’s my question to you: How would you regulate talk radio?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is the stimulus bill transparent?
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Part of President Obama's appeal during the election was his call for a new era of transparency, of shaking up the way things are done in Washington.
The 1,071 page bill was posted late last night on a congressional website.
But when you look at how his stimulus bill is moving through Congress, it sounds a whole lot like the way "old" Washington operated.
Late last night, the stimulus plan – all one-thousand seventy-one pages of it – was posted on a congressional web site. This gave lawmakers only a few hours to read it before voting. No one can read a thousand page document written by lawyers in just a few hours.
so the House passed the bill without having read it and the Senate is expected to do the same thing shortly. Almost $800 billion and nobody in Congress knows what's in there. That ought to help you to sleep well tonight.
The Democrats promised lawmakers and the public would have at least 48 hours to read the thing before the vote. They lied. Again.
Old fashioned politics. Wait until the last possible moment – President Obama wants this on his desk by Monday – and then cram it through.
As the AP puts it, the stimulus bill is clearly "the result of old-fashioned sausage-making", with pet projects coming to light that hadn't been included in the original bills.
Here’s my question to you: What does a 1,000 page stimulus bill the public had virtually no chance to look at say about the new era of "government transparency"?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Would you spend extra money or save it?
Are you a spender or a saver? (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With the economy in a tailspin, Americans are saving more. And while that's a good thing for Americans, believe it or not that's a bad thing for the economy.
We have gone from a negative savings rate a year ago to saving 3-point-6 percent of our income in December. That translates to 36 dollars saved for every one-thousand dollars of after tax income.
Although our current savings rate isn't a record high and is still lower than other countries, it's a lot higher than it's been. And therein lies the problem. Our economy relies on consumer spending for its mojo. Consumers drive two-thirds of our economy. If Americans aren't opening their wallets, the economy isn't going anywhere.
But as more people are laid off and family budgets are tightened, many understandably want to save more. Also, more Americans are saving more as they're seeing their access to credit cut off.
This is all a lot different from what we saw before the bottom fell out of the economy: the savings rate was at historic lows from 2005 through early in 2008, occasionally even falling below zero. Those were the days when a strong stock market and skyrocketing real estate prices led many to believe they had an endless supply of money- or certainly an endless supply of credit.
But those days are over, and we suddenly find ourselves in a rather strange position. Although it's better for your bottom line to save as much as you can, doing that might just prolong our economic woes.
Here’s my question to you: If you come into extra money, will you spend it or save it?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments