April 26th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Will federal govt. ever enforce our immigration laws?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

So Arizona passes a tough law against illegal immigration and suddenly they get Washington's attention.

One poll finds 70 percent of Arizona voters support the new law... hey, maybe we better do something too. So like the lemmings they are when they smell a chance to score political points... and some of them need a lot of help with the midterms approaching - there is talk now of rushing immigration reform through Congress.

President Obama called the Arizona law "misguided." What is misguided, Mr. President, is the federal government's refusal to enforce the laws already on the books. Read the Arizona law... parts of it are word-for-word the same as the federal laws - which continue to be ignored.

Now we'll hear all sorts of blathering from our Washington gerbils about the need for a new federal law. There will be press conferences, interviews, committee hearings, draft legislation, polling... all the usual carnival acts that accompany any hot-button issue in Washington, DC.

Instead of simply closing the borders and enforcing the existing law so that they could turn their attention to something like the national debt and the fact that the country is bankrupt, we will get this freak show.

Washington's position on illegal immigration is dishonest from the top down. No enforcement. No border security. Just pandering to the Hispanic voters and the corporations that hire the illegals.

But when one of our states that is being ravaged by the presence of 460,000 illegal aliens inside its borders does something about it, the president says that's "misguided."

What a shame.

Here’s my question to you: Will the federal government ever enforce our immigration laws?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Government • Immigration
April 23rd, 2010
06:11 PM ET

Have Democrats done enough for their base?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/23/art.housedems.0423.gi.jpg caption=" Have Democrats done enough for their base?"]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The Democrats are just not cutting it. One top Democratic official says the party is not giving its base enough of a reason to vote for them in the midterm elections.

Pennsylvania Governor and former Chairman of the Democratic National Committee Ed Rendell says that everyone gives a little bit too much credit to the Independents.

Rendell insists Democrats do want to win the independent vote, but ultimately a lot also depends on turnout of the party's base.

Quote: "we have to give our base a reason to get out there, a reason to feel proud of who we are and what we stood for as a party. And I don't think up to now we've done a very effective job" unquote.

Rendell has a point. Polls show Republicans are much more fired up about voting in the midterms. One survey taken after health care reform passed showed 55% of Republicans are "extremely" or "very" enthusiastic about voting in November.... that's compared to only 36 percent of Democrats who feel that way.

In theory – health care, a major Obama campaign promise, should get the base going. But a lot of Liberals were disappointed it didn't go further and include a public option.

Also, the Democrats risk alienating more of their base with reports this week that they plan to undertake immigration legislation before climate change. Although immigration reform which is a long shot could help with the Hispanic vote lots of Liberals believe now is the best time in years to pass a bill on global warming.

Still Other democrats are waiting for the party to address other issues, like gays in the military.

Here’s my question to you: Have the Democrats done enough for their base to win in November?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Democrats
April 23rd, 2010
04:39 PM ET

SEC watching porn instead of Wall Street?

[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/23/art.wallstreet.0423.gi.jpg caption=" SEC watching porn instead of Wall Street?."]

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As Wall Street brought the nation to the brink of financial collapse a couple years ago some of our so-called top government regulators were spending hours a day of agency time watching pornography on government computers instead of watching the investment bankers on Wall street who were going south with the economy.

The inspector general for the Securities and Exchange Commission says at least 33 employees were involved watching internet filth. Almost all of these cases occurred in the last two and a half years which would coincide with the near-collapse of the financial system.

More than half of these employees were at a "senior level" making up to $220,000.

And if you're not disgusted yet, let me continue:

One senior attorney at the SEC in Washington spent as much as 8 hours a day looking at and downloading porn. After running out of hard drive space on his computer, he burned the files onto CDs or DVDs and stored them in boxes in his office.

An SEC accountant was blocked more than 16,000 times in one month from trying to access porn sites.

Another SEC accountant tried to access pornography online almost 2,000 times in a two-week period. She had 600 pornographic images saved on her computer.

The SEC won't release the names of these people even though they work for you. They claim those involved have been disciplined, suspended or fired. They should all be fired end of discussion.

Meanwhile President Obama wants to create another new government bureaucracy to oversee Wall Street. What if the SEC just did its job instead?

Here’s my question to you: Should Pres. Obama be more concerned about the SEC watching pornography when they should have been watching Wall Street?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: President Obama • Wall Street
April 22nd, 2010
06:00 PM ET

How much govt. involvement in Wall St., health care, auto industry, banks?



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

In calling on Wall St. to back reform - Pres. Obama says he believes in the power of the free market, but he also says: "A free market was never meant to be a free license to take whatever you can get, however you can get it."

The president insists that reform of the financial industry is necessary in order to avoid another crisis - the aftermath of which we're still living through.

He says reform would: Help keep consumers from being "duped" by deceptive financial deals, make complex investment derivatives more transparent, and create a "dedicated agency" to make sure banks don't take advantage of people. The translation of that last part is yet another government bureaucracy.

The president's in a tough spot - trying to convince those on Wall St. to support reforms of Wall St; and he insists the reforms are in the "best interest" of both the country and the industry.

We'll see. The fact of the matter is these calls for more regulation follow government meddling in everything from health care to the auto industry and banks… not what usually comes to mind when you think of free market capitalism.

And not everyone is comfortable with this. A new Pew poll suggests an overwhelming majority of Americans are either frustrated or angry with the federal government... and almost one-third of us see the government as a threat to our personal freedom.

This poll also shows most Americans are against a larger, more activist government... except when it comes to regulating big financial companies.

Here’s my question to you: How much should the government be involved in things like Wall Street, health care, the auto industry and banks?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 6pm 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.

Filed under: Auto Industry • Government • Health care • Wall Street
April 22nd, 2010
05:00 PM ET

What is Arizona thinking?

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

What is up with Arizona? Within a matter of days, state lawmakers have passed two controversial measures that are sparking a national debate.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/22/art.mccain.jpg caption="Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)"]
First - there's the so-called birther bill, which passed the Arizona house. It's meant to clarify the birthplace of a potential president - and would require Pres. Obama to show his birth certificate in order to be on Arizona's ballot if he runs for re-election in 2012. The same would go for any candidate who hopes to be on the state's ballot.

This all goes back to the "birther" movement... and those conspiracy theories about the Hawaiian-born Mr. Obama. There were also questions during the 2008 presidential campaign about Arizona's own Sen. John McCain - he was born in the Panama Canal Zone, which was considered a U.S. territory in 1936, at the time of his birth.

Democrats in Arizona are blasting the birther bill... along with a tough immigration measure that's now sitting on the governor's desk - and is likely to wind up in court if she signs it into law.

As we reported in the Cafferty File - the Arizona Senate passed the immigration bill earlier this week. It would allow police to arrest people who can't prove they're in the country legally. Police in this country traditionally don't stop people for no reason and ask "to see their papers."

Critics say these two measures taken together are turning Arizona into "the laughingstock of the nation." It's a title that used to belong to Florida.

Even a former Bush press secretary is critical... Dana Perino says although stronger enforcement is needed when it comes to illegal immigration, this measure goes too far... and she says the so-called birther measure should be rescinded.

Here’s my question to you: What is Arizona thinking?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Uncategorized
April 21st, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Three-fourths of youth unfit for military service

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

With the U.S. fighting two wars and threats like a potentially nuclear-armed Iran on the horizon, there is a very scary truth that needs to be addressed.

[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/21/art.cafeteria.jpg caption=""]

Three-fourths of the young people between the ages of 17 and 24 are unfit for military service. It's a national disgrace.

There are a number of reasons for a lack of a sufficient pool of recruits for the military to draw from. These include factors like having a criminal record, not graduating from high school, or having health problems.

But the biggest reason is that a boatload of young people in this country are fat. In a report titled "Too Fat to Fight," a group of 130 retired military leaders says the top medical reason is young people are simply too heavy - and can't handle the physical requirements of being in the military.

One fourth of young Americans are just too fat to fight.

The report blames unhealthy food in school lunchrooms; and they're calling on Congress to pass a wide-ranging nutrition bill that would make school meals healthier. But the problem extends far beyond the school lunchroom.

We have become a sedentary society that doesn't exercise enough, spends way too much time in front of the TV or computer and exists on a diet of fast food and/or junk food. The price tag for that is sacrificing the future of the U.S. military.

The authors of this troubling report say all branches of the military now meet or exceed their recruitment requirements… but if these obesity trends don't change, they could wind up threatening our national security by the year 2030. That's less than 20 years away.

Here’s my question to you: What does it say about our country if three-fourths of our youth are unfit for military service?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Obesity • On Jack's radar • U.S. Army • US Military • US Obesity
April 21st, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Should Pres. Obama return $1 million from Goldman Sachs?


Goldman Sachs was charged with fraud by the Securities and Exchange Commission over its marketing of a subprime mortgage product, sending its stock price sharply lower. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Wall Street may be enemy number one for President Obama and the Democrats these days; but things get complicated when you look at how corporate America has lined their pockets.

Let's start at the top - the president received nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs. That would be the same Goldman Sachs that the government is now accusing of civil fraud tied to those subprime mortgage investments.

Federal law prohibits a company from giving directly to an election campaign; so this money came from Goldman's political action committee and employees. The $1 million represents the president's second largest contributor... and these donations from Wall Street's top investment bank to Mr. Obama were more than four times what they gave to John McCain.

But in light of these allegations against Goldman - and as Mr. Obama and the Democrats push hard for financial reform - maybe the president should consider returning this money. As a candidate, Barack Obama made lots of lofty promises about not being beholden to special interests. here's a chance to prove he meant them.

Of course - it's not just the president. Records show in the 2008 election, three out of every four dollars given by Goldman went to Democrats. And since then? The company has contributed generously to the members of the congressional committees that have oversight of the financial industry. Sadly it's the way the game is played.

The big corporations in this country own our government - lock, stock and barrel. Our so-called representatives sell their souls for campaign contributions... and when it comes time to pick a side, the corporations or the people they are elected to represent, guess which side they most often choose.

Here’s my question to you: Should Pres. Obama return the nearly $1 million in campaign contributions from Goldman Sachs?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


April 20th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

G.E. and Bank of America paid no federal income taxes last year

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As we reported in the Cafferty File last week - 47 percent of all U.S. households will pay no federal income taxes for last year… not a dime. They're in good company.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/04/20/art.ge.boa.jpg caption=""]
General Electric and Bank of America also managed to pay no income taxes to the federal government for 2009. That's right - not a single dime.

Here's how: Although GE earned lots of money last year - they did it overseas and not in the U.S.: General Electric's American operations lost about $400 million, while its international businesses netted nearly $11 billion in profit.

After deductions and adjustments - GE reported a negative 10.5 percent federal income tax rate... and wound up with a "tax benefit" of almost $1 billion.

When it comes to income tax payments on the overseas profits, they defer those "indefinitely."

Not bad… make $11 billion and get a tax benefit of a billion more. The rest of us need their accountants.

As for Bank of America - after major losses in 2009... it ended the year with a tax benefit of almost $2 billion.

Meanwhile - this country faces a staggering $12 trillion national debt... with skyrocketing deficits, estimated to top $1.6 trillion this year alone.

We are going bankrupt and Washington refuses to do anything meaningful about it.

But, don't worry, the big corporations are doing just fine. They own the politicians and the government as evidenced by these kinds of tax bills.

Here’s my question to you: Is it right that companies like General Electric and Bank of America paid no federal income taxes last year?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Taxes
April 20th, 2010
05:00 PM ET

Illegal immigrants entering U.S. with criminal records



FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The people of Arizona are fed up when it comes to illegal immigration. And they ought to be.

Almost one in five of those caught trying to enter the state illegally from Mexico has a criminal record.

It's one reason why Senators John McCain and John Kyl are calling for 3,000 National Guard troops to be deployed to Arizona's border with Mexico.

They also want federal funding for an additional 3,000 U.S. customs and border agents, a double-row border fence, increased mobile surveillance and hardship duty pay for border patrol agents.

But it's not the only reason... at least for McCain. Can you tell he's in danger of losing his Senate seat this November? Where have all the clowns in Washington been on this issue since 9/11? Virtually nothing has been done to secure the nation's borders... because Democrats want the Mexican vote and Republican donors want the illegal aliens to work for them.

President Obama insists his administration is committed to securing the borders and has taken "unprecedented" steps over the past 14 months. What a load.

The fact is it's unlikely anything will be done about illegal immigration now that we're in an election year for the reasons laid out above.

But Arizona is taking measures into its own hands. The state Senate has passed a tough immigration bill that would force police to arrest people who can't prove they're in the country legally.

Critics say it would lead to racial profiling. So what? The state's governor has five days to veto the bill or sign it into law.

Here’s my question to you: What should be done about border security if almost 20 percent of illegal immigrants entering Arizona from Mexico have criminal records?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Mexico • U.S. Border Security
April 19th, 2010
06:00 PM ET

Message to incumbents if Reid trails by double digits in Nevada?


An opponent of Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) protests outside a campaign event in Fernley, Nevada. Reid is lagging in polls following passage of the controversial health care bill that Pres. Obama signed into law. Reid is bidding for a fifth Senate term. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)

FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Incumbents may want to take note:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing the Republican front-runner in Nevada by double digits.

The Mason-Dixon poll conducted for the Las Vegas Review-Journal shows Republican Sue Lowden getting 47 percent of the vote... compared to 37 percent for Reid. The poll also includes a slate of third-party and other candidates, who get very little backing.

Reid has been in trouble in his home state for awhile now. His campaign had always argued that the presence of third party candidates distorted the real picture. Reid claimed when the election was held these minor party candidates would split the vote and he would still win.

But this poll suggests adding the minor candidates into the mix doesn't really "bleed support" away from the Republican. Experts suggest voters rarely choose third-party candidates in closer races with high stakes... because they don't want to throw away their vote.

Reid's people still sound confident that the senator can win a fifth term - what else are they gonna say. Another recent poll shows the senate majority leader with an unfavorable rating of 56 percent in Nevada. The people in his own state can't stand him.

And it's not just Reid who might be in trouble. People are increasingly angry about their government and are likely to take it out on incumbents come November. Let's hope they do.

Here’s my question to you: What message does it send to incumbents if Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid is trailing by double digits in his home state?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?


Filed under: Harry Reid • Senate
« older posts
newer posts »