Interested in Sarah Palin's views on health care?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/11/jc.palin.gi.jpg caption=" Palin suggests the disruptive protests 'diminish our nation's civil discourse', and says opponents shouldn't give supporters of health care reform any reason to criticize them."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
First she called Pres. Obama's health care plan "evil" and said it would create "death panels." Now Sarah Palin is urging restraint at town hall meetings.
In comments on her Facebook page, the former governor of Alaska (who quit in the middle of her first term) says there are many "disturbing details" in the health care bill, but that "we must stick to a discussion of the issues and not get sidetracked by tactics that can be accused of leading to intimidation or harassment."
Palin suggests the disruptive protests "diminish our nation's civil discourse", and says opponents shouldn't give supporters of health care reform any reason to criticize them.
This is the same woman who a few days ago was spreading a false claim that Pres. Obama would force the elderly and disabled to appear before a "death panel." She said a group of bureaucrats would get to decide whether people like her parents and her son, who has Down Syndrome, could get health care.
There's no such provision in the bill. Gee, do you suppose she didn't read it? Rather, a House committee passed a provision that would let Medicare reimburse seniors who want counseling on end-of-life issues. Once again, Sarah Palin's version of reality is at odds with reality.
Whatever the reason, Palin backed down. See, she wasn't getting much support. Several Republican governors distanced themselves from her, either refusing to comment or saying Palin could "speak for herself." Not exactly the way to build that right-of-center coalition she keeps talking about.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Are you interested in Sarah Palin's views on health care reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Nationwide govt. hiring freeze until after recession?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/11/jc.jobfairs3.gi.jpg caption="Should there be a nationwide government hiring freeze until the recession is over?"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
During a recession most people tend to cut back-unless you're the government.
The state of California – which has a budget deficit of more than $26 billion dollars – added thousands of people to the state payroll last year. The state of California has lost nearly 760,000 private sector jobs during the same time that the government was adding 3,600 people to the state payroll.
Taxpayer groups are outraged, and rightfully so. They suggest cutting jobs, not hiring more people, should be the answer during tough economic times... which seems pretty logical. They say, "When there's no money left in the till, you should economize."
But state employees say they're being punished for the government's irresponsible financial decisions – like hiring thousands of additional workers when the state deficit is in the tens of billions of dollars. They point to unpaid furloughs as an example, saying the furloughs equal about a 14% pay cut for some state employees.
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says monthly payroll costs have decreased by about 10% because of these furloughs. Also, the governor says the increase in workers is due to more demand on the state for services during the recession.
One state official insists that "it wouldn't be much of a safety net if we cut down services people needed most" during the recession. For example, some of the biggest increases came in the state's unemployment agency.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Should there be a nationwide government hiring freeze until the recession is over?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Good idea to put off immigration reform until next year?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/08/11/jc.0810.immigration2.gi.jpg caption="Immigration advocates say they don't think reform will be as tough as the White House imagines; they'd prefer for the president to act sooner."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama says he has a lot on his plate and that immigration reform will have to wait until next year.
At a summit with the leaders of Mexico and Canada, the president repeated his commitment to providing a legal pathway to citizenship for those who are in the U.S. illegally. This is called amnesty.
But first, he wants Congress to finish work on health care, energy and financial regulation. The president says his administration is meeting with members of Congress and working on an immigration bill that would get bipartisan support, but doesn't expect anything to pass until 2010.
And even then, Mr. Obama acknowledges that that he will face tough opposition, what he calls "demagogues" who say any pathway to legalization is unacceptable. It's not just "demagogues." The American public has repeatedly expressed broad based opposition to granting amnesty to illegal aliens.
Last week in the Cafferty File we reported on a recent Gallup Poll that showed Americans are taking a tougher stand on immigration than they have for several years.
Not everyone is happy with the president's new timetable. Immigration advocates say they don't think reform will be as tough as the White House imagines, they'd prefer for him to act sooner.
But with rising unemployment and dwindling tax revenues with which to provide services to our own citizens, let alone millions of illegal aliens, expect the debate to rival the intensity of the one we're currently having over health care.
SO HERE'S THE QUESTION: Is it a good idea to put off immigration reform until next year?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments