April 28th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

How serious is Congress about reducing natl. debt?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

"Everything has to be on the table." That's what Pres. Obama says about reducing our skyrocketing deficits. Don't bet on it.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/28/art.debt.clock.jpg caption="The National Debt Clock in Manhattan."]
For one thing the president refuses to say which programs may be cut. And, other lawmakers have been all over the place lately saying what they want off the table. No value-added tax, no cuts to Social Security, and not allowing tax cuts for low and middle income families to expire.

All this as the president's 18-member bipartisan debt commission gets to work. The commission is meant to bring the federal budget down to three percent of the country's GDP by 2015. Right now the deficit is on track to be double that.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke warns that if we don't do something about these deficits they will do "great damage" to the U.S. economy. Bernanke says our debt levels are on an "unsustainable path."

Budget experts point out that new measures will have to rein in Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security costs. But we continue to be represented by people who won't make any tough decisions because they're afraid if they do they won't be reelected. Time to vote them out. We can't keep kicking the deficit can down the road any longer.

And don't get too excited about this so-called debt panel created by Pres. Obama, either. It has no legal authority. They need 14 of the 18 members to agree to any recommendations, which can then be ignored by Congress. This is sort of like sitting on the railroad tracks, seeing the train barreling down on you, and refusing to move out of the way.

Here’s my question to you: How serious is Congress about reducing the national debt?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Congress • Congressional Spending • National debt
April 28th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Mexico issues travel alert over Arizona immigration law



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Arizona's tough new immigration law hasn't even gone into effect yet, and it's already working:

Mexico has issued an alert for Mexicans traveling to Arizona. The country is urging its citizens to be careful... that they may be "harassed and questioned without further cause at any time" should they go to Arizona.

That's not the case at all, but it is ironic. Travel warnings usually work the other way around... with various countries warning their citizens not to go to Mexico due to drug-related violence.

However, no good deed goes unpunished.

The Obama administration might challenge Arizona's new law in court. They're concerned the law could take away resources needed to target criminals. How utterly absurd. How about the 460,000 people who are in Arizona illegally now? The reason Arizona did this is the federal government refuses to enforce our immigration laws.

Meanwhile seven members of the city council have signed a proposal for Los Angeles to "refrain from conducting business" in Arizona, and San Francisco's mayor has imposed an immediate moratorium on city-related travel to that state.

But Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer says she's not worried about possible boycotts. And she points out that the new law is about the safety of Arizona's citizens.

And she's getting support from at least one legislator in Texas who wants the Lone Star State to pass a similar law. President Obama should be embarrassed by this.

Here’s my question to you: Is it a good thing that Mexico is issuing a travel alert over Arizona's new immigration law?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Immigration • Mexico
April 28th, 2010
12:21 PM ET
April 28th, 2010
12:19 PM ET