Releasing prisoners early a good way to save states money?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
No doubt, tough economic times call for tough decisions and some thinking outside the box.
So in an effort to relieve budget woes, the Governor of Illinois is proposing the early release of up to 10,000 prisoners. The move would reportedly save taxpayers $125 million a year and result in layoffs for 1,000 corrections employees.
It would also put thousands of convicts on the streets. But have no fear, officials say it would only be those deemed by the state as non-threatening, who have less than a year left to serve.
Critics say it's just a scheme by the Governor to scare people into supporting an increase in income tax. But Illinois isn't the only state to consider such a move. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger made a similar proposal in California to save that state $180 million by releasing undocumented inmates, among others.
In the past, Mississippi, Rhode Island and Kentucky have considered such plans too, and Mississippi is actually doing it.
Critics argue that public safety isn't the place to slash the budget. Then there is also the issue of whether or not a Governor has the authority to release thousands of inmates whose sentences were imposed by a judge after they were convicted in a court of law.
Here’s my question to you: Is releasing prisoners early a good way for states to save money?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will voters blame Democrats for economic problems in 2010 election?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
At some point it will become President Obama and the Democrats' recession, not George W. Bush's. If the economy doesn't start to show signs of picking up, Democrats could feel the voters' anger in next year's mid-term elections.
President Obama is traveling a path not unlike the one President Ronald Reagan once traveled and, as my colleague Christine Romans points out, the Democrats could learn something from President Reagan's experience. Both Presidents were wildly popular early on, but unemployment was rising.
In the 1982 elections Reagan's Republican Party lost 26 seats and experts say the scale was tipped when unemployment hit 10-percent. President Obama currently faces a 9.5-percent unemployment rate and now says 10-percent is likely before the year is over. Renowned investor Warren Buffet said this morning on Good Morning America that unemployment could hit 11-percent.
It seems everyone knows someone who has lost their job. While the Obama Administration is busy pointing the finger at Bush, those unemployed Americans who can't find a job will likely be tempted to take it out on whoever is in power when they vote next fall. What remains to be seen is if voters are ready to start returning Republicans to power so soon after the Bush Administration.
Here’s my question to you: Will the voters blame the Democrats for our economic problems in next year's election?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should health care legislation contain billions for parks, walking paths and farmers markets?
Here’s my question to you:
It is perhaps the centerpiece of President Obama's agenda for his first term in office. Reform the nation's health care system before it bankrupts the country. It also comes with a hefty, as yet undetermined, price tag which has been estimated as high as $1 trillion.
With all of the negotiating over who should be taxed and what provisions will stay or go, the plan to provide better health care for all Americans is also adding up to billions of dollars in what's being called health infrastructure. This infrastructure includes things like walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms and even farmers markets.
Some suggest a better name would be pork...
Advocates, including Massachusetts Senator Edward Kennedy, say this is all needed to promote healthier lifestyles and cut medical spending down the road with lower obesity rates, less heart disease and other health problems.
Critics, including Wyoming Senator Mike Enzi, say this is pork and these are simply public works projects in disguise that don't belong in this bill.
The way it stands, local and state governments will have to submit proposals for the projects and Secretary of Health and Human Services, Kathleen Sebelius, would have the final say. Can you imagine the potential bottleneck?
This is far from a done deal. But with an eye toward next year's midterm elections, it's never too early for the folks in Congress to think about keeping their constituents happy.
Here’s my question to you: Should health care legislation contain billions of dollars for parks, walking paths and farmers markets?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Politics a good second career for actors and comedians?
Left to Right: Alec Baldwin, Al Franken, Arnold Schwarzenegger, Fred Thompson. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The actor Alec Baldwin is reportedly eyeing a run for Congress just as former comedian Al Franken becomes the newest show biz type to join lawmakers on Capitol Hill. Baldwin vowed to leave the country if George Bush was elected, but he's still here and now reportedly wants to become part of the Washington establishment.
We've gotten used to celebrities on Capitol Hill drawing attention to this cause or that cause from time to time. But it's also nothing new for these celebrities to step into the role of lawmaker.
Former pro wrestler Jesse Ventura became Governor of Minnesota in 1998. He declined to run for a second term.
Actor Fred Thompson, notably of Law & Order fame, served as a Senator from Tennessee before mounting a failed bid for the White House.
And speaking of Presidents, Ronald Reagan, of course, was an actor before jumping to politics, as was California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. And we can't forget singer and actor Sonny Bono.
The list goes on including stars from shows like the Love Boat, and the Dukes of Hazard who all have spent time in Washington on behalf of constituents who elected them to office.
Baldwin's credentials are questionable… but Al Franken is no slouch. He's Harvard educated and one of his first duties will be as a committee member for the confirmation hearing of Sonia Sotomayor next week.
Why it occurs to actors who spend their time pretending to be someone else that they are the answer to our nation's problems is a mystery. On second thought, how much worse can they be than the ones that are groomed for life inside the Beltway?
Here’s my question to you: Is politics a good second career choice for actors and comedians?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Have your views of Palin changed since she announced quitting as Governor?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As quickly as Sarah Palin announced she was quitting her job as Governor of Alaska in the middle of her term, the airwaves were filled with pundits eager to pronounce her political career dead in the water. Even Rush Limbaugh was stumped. Which doesn't happen often.
Yesterday on this show Democratic strategist Paul Begala said: "Her defenders will say, she's crazy like a fox. I think they're half right. The notion that she would look [CNN's] Drew [Griffin] in the eye and say, I'm not a quitter as she's quitting. She is either delusional or disingenuous."
But a look at some new poll numbers suggests it might be a bit early to plan Palin's memorial service. A new Gallup poll found 43-percent of Americans say they are very likely or somewhat likely to vote for her for President. In fact, 70-percent of those surveyed said Palin's decision to resign had no effect on their opinion of her at all. Go figure.
The poll also found 53-percent think the media coverage of Palin's decision to quit her job as governor in the middle of her first term has been unfairly negative.
Sarah Palin may in fact have more options than her detractors give her credit for. That same poll shows 70-percent of Republicans said they would vote for Palin for president. If that seems a little lopsided it's probably because most of the rest of the front runners in the Republican Party have misstepped so much that she and Mitt Romney are about all that's left.
Here’s my question to you: Have your views of Sarah Palin changed since she announced she’s quitting her job as Governor?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should gov't consider second stimulus package?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
An outside adviser to President Obama says the U.S. should consider a second stimulus package because the $787 billion package approved in February was "a bit too small." Others have criticized the plan for not distributing the money fast enough to create the jobs necessary to halt the downward spiral we seem to be in.
Job seekers wait in line to speak with prospective employers at a job fair .The number of U.S. workers filing new claims for unemployment benefits is at a 26-year high.
On Capitol Hill, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said he'd consider a second stimulus but emphasized that it's too soon to say the first stimulus package has failed.
A look at a few facts would suggest it has been less than a screaming success. The economy is still struggling, mired in recession that shows few signs of abating. Last week's jobs report found unemployment is still climbing and experts expect it will surpass 10-percent this year, even though the stimulus bill was supposed to hold it below eight percent.
Yesterday the stock market hit a 10-week low, so confidence is clearly still lacking among investors. And all that optimism over perceived "green shoots" of recovery that were touted just a few weeks ago has all but disappeared along with a lot of the "shoots."
Advisers in and out of Washington agree on one thing: the stimulus bill was based in an economy that was not as bad the one we're in now.
Here’s my question to you: Should the government consider a second stimulus package?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What does it say about the GOP in S.C. that they won't call for Sanford's resignation?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The arrogance of South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford knows no bounds apparently. And the hypocrisy of the South Carolina Republican Party doesn't either. In the wake of his admission that he's been cheating on his wife, the state GOP voted to censure Sanford. Which amounts to looking the other way.
The reason for the censure was his secret travels to Argentina to visit his mistress, which officially translates into what the GOP is calling "Repeated failures to act in accordance with the party's core principles and beliefs."
One of those core principles is family values, except when it's inconvenient. Sanford also refuses to resign on his own, thus joining the soiled ranks of Larry Craig of Idaho and John Ensign of Nevada. Proud Republicans all.
Sanford also gets a slap on the wrist for falling below the standards expected of Republican elected officials. Deliberations reportedly went on for nearly four hours on a conference call and there were multiple rounds of balloting. This patty cake gesture on the part of the Party of family values is meaningless.
Just to be clear, Sanford's own party is saying they don't trust him and don't think he can effectively perform his duties as Governor; but it's okay with them if he continues in South Carolina's highest office. Pathetic.
Here’s my question to you: What does it say about the Republican Party in South Carolina that they won't call for Gov. Sanford's resignation?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How important are better relations between U.S. and Russia?
President Obama and Russian President Dmitry Medvedev walk by the Czar Cannon in the territory of the Kremlin. (PHOTO CREDIT: DMITRY ASTAKHOV/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama is in Moscow for meetings with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in an effort to smooth things over between the two countries. It's the latest example of President Obama trying to extinguish the flames of something former president George W. Bush left burning.
In a press conference today, President Obama said a strong Russia is good for the U.S. and spoke of a deep rooted respect Americans have for the Russian people.
Depends on who you ask. According to a Gallup Poll, Americans don't feel much like cozying up to Russia. 53-percent of Americans view Russia unfavorably, the highest it's been in nine years.
Russians aren't in love with Americans either - at least not with our leaders. 34-percent of Russians disapprove of U.S. leadership, which is lower than it's been in previous years. But it's worth noting that many Russians said they are still undecided about their opinion of U.S. leadership under President Obama.
And it's actually better than it was 10-years ago during the unrest in 1999 before Boris Yeltsin conceded power to Putin. Then Russians' opinion of American leadership was at an all time low.
Here’s my question to you: How important are better relations between the U.S. and Russia?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
In light of Nat'l Debt, what priority should the space program have?
In 2003, Former President George W. Bush announced plans to phase out the space shuttle program by 2010 and instead shift the focus and funding to what was named the Constellation program - a plan to send man back to the moon by 2020. This is all part of a bigger plan to eventually send a manned space mission to Mars.
None of that may happen any time soon. The country is broke and in a nasty recession and as a result, the Constellation Program is being reconsidered because of budgetary constraints.
The projected cost for the Constellation capsule itself, which would go to the moon, is estimated at $150 Billion and climbing. Keep in mind that in 2009, just $6 Billion was allotted for space exploration. Florida Senator John Nelson, who is a former astronaut, said the 2020 goal can't possibly be met and NASA can't do it's job.
President Obama's commission on human space flight has looked into a proposal created by NASA engineers who have criticized the Constellation project. Their project is called Jupiter and would have the same objectives as Constellation, but is believed to be about half the cost. Nevertheless - that's still tens of billions of dollars.
Here’s my question to you: In light of the ballooning National Debt, what priority should the U.S. space program have?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
VP Biden said Israel is free to set its own course on Iran. What does this mean?
Vice Pres. Biden poses for a photo with U.S. soldiers at Camp Victory on the outskirts of Baghdad on the Fourth of July. (PHOTO CREDIT: KHALID MOHAMMED/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
There is some question whether Vice President Joe Biden did it again. Over the weekend, Biden said that the U.S. would not stand in the way if Israel attacks Iran's nuclear facilities. Some say this signals a change in U.S. policy - drawing a harder line against Iran.
But the White House said the statement simply maintains what they've always said: That Israel has the right to defend itself.
The Vice President also said that the U.S. remains willing to negotiate with Iran, in spite of the recent violence that erupted in the wake of the contested re-election of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
In May, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu met with President Obama and said he'd wait it out for the rest of this year to see if Iran is willing to talk. When asked if this was the right approach, Vice President Biden did not say whether or not the U.S. agrees with the position, but did say: "Israel can determine for itself - it's a sovereign nation; what's in their interest and what they decide to do relative to Iran and anyone else."
Here’s my question to you: Vice President Biden said Israel is free to set its own course on Iran. What does this mean?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments