What services are you worried your state will cut?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Coming soon to a state near you: Painful spending cuts.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/10/art.pledge.jpg caption=""]
A piece on CNNMoney.com suggests that although states have been struggling with huge budget gaps since 2008, federal stimulus funds have helped them avoid making some tough cuts.
But this year those federal dollars will be drying up - and the cuts ahead could be brutal: Think education and health programs, like Medicaid.
You see, states are required to balance their budgets; and for the past couple years, they've been getting help from the stimulus package.
To make matters worse, many states have already slashed services and used up their rainy day funds to balance their budgets.
As for money coming in, there are estimates that income tax revenue from this past April is likely to drop - a lot.
States are hoping Congress will renew some of the stimulus provisions - especially increased funding for Medicaid.
Without that federal money - states will be hurting. Big time.
For example, Pennsylvania would have to slash half its funding for domestic violence and rape crisis services, cut 25 percent from the budget for child welfare services, and reduce payments to hospitals, doctors and nursing homes.
As for education, 275,000 jobs could be eliminated nationwide due to budget cuts - which would pretty much wipe out the approximately 300,000 jobs saved by the stimulus bill.
Here in New York state - as many as 15,000 teachers could lose their jobs.
Here’s my question to you: What services are you worried your state will cut?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Message to incumbents by Utah Sen. Bennett's loss?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In Boston they threw tea into the harbor. This time around they're throwing incumbents into the street. And it's a wonderful thing.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/10/art.bob.bennett.jpg caption="Bob Bennett (R-UT) was ousted by GOP activists."]
Utah has become the first state to oust an incumbent this year - three-term Republican Senator Bob Bennett lost to more conservative candidates in a second round of balloting at the state party convention.
It's the first time since 1940 that an incumbent senator in Utah has failed to get his party's nomination.
Bennett was a powerful and likable Senator, that just wasn't enough this time around. If anything, Republicans in Utah seemed to be turned off by his seniority.
Bennett himself acknowledged what he called the "toxic'" political atmosphere.
The country is in an anti-incumbent rage, and Bennett's loss may be an ominous warning sign for other incumbents. We can hope. National polls show deep-seated unrest and discontent with Washington. And other incumbents are feeling the heat.
In Iowa, long time Republican senator Charles Grassley is in trouble... he's still barely ahead but has dropped 20 points in a hypothetical match-up against his Democratic opponent.
In Pennsylvania, Republican-turned-Democrat turned turncoat Arlen Specter - the state's longest serving senator - may finally be shown the door. His lead over his primary challenger is evaporating. The Pennsylvania district held by the late Democratic Congressman John Murtha is in Jeopardy of going to a Republican for the first time in 35 years. It's all good.
Ironically, like the first one, this revolution also began in Massachusetts... with the election of a Republican to fill the Senate seat of the late Ted Kennedy.
Here’s my question to you: What message does Utah Sen. Bob Bennett's loss send to other incumbents?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Should govt. revoke citizenship of Americans involved in terrorism?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's called the "Terrorist Expatriation Act"... and if it passes, the government could have the right to strip citizenship from any American suspected of supporting terrorism.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/07/art.shahzad.jpg caption="Faisal Shahzad, a Pakistani-American, was arrested Monday in connection with last weekend's car bombing attempt on Times Square."]
Bipartisan bills are being introduced in both the Senate and the House; and supporters point to the recent terror attempt in Times Square - which was carried out by a Pakistani-American. They say the measure reflects the "changing nature of war."
The proposal would actually update an existing - but rarely used - law run by the State Department. That 1940 measure allows the government to revoke citizenship for actions like voting in another country's elections or joining the army of a nation at war with the U.S.
What's interesting here is the measure isn't drawing the usual partisan responses. Some top Democrats seem to be supporting it... including Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who says the administration will take "a hard look" at extending the existing powers of the government.
Also House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she supports the "spirit" of the measure... although she still needs to hear more details.
Meanwhile some Republicans are skeptical... including House Minority Leader John Boehner, who questions the constitutionality of the measure.
Legal experts are also mixed in their opinions. Some worry that it's an "extraordinary step" to take away citizenship from someone. And they say to do it based only on suspicion, without court trials, is giving the government too much power.
Here’s my question to you: Should the government revoke citizenship of people involved in terrorism?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How seriously do you take pres. & Congress on immigration reform?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The federal government is trying to play catch-up with Arizona - when it comes to immigration reform.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/07/art.obama.jpg caption=""]
President Obama is calling on Congress to start work this year on comprehensive immigration reform. Translation: Nothing will get done this year.
The president acknowledges that the nation's immigration system is "broken," yet criticizes Arizona's new law - saying it undermines "fundamental principles that define us as a nation." Portions of the Arizona law are word for word the same as the federal law which is ignored year after year.
Mr. Obama promised immigration reform during his first year in office. We're now approaching the midway point of his second year. Even some Democrats are getting tired of waiting for the president to do something.
The president has suggested that there's not an appetite in Congress for another fiery debate in an election year; and just yesterday his press secretary said that there's not enough support to move forward. Except in the country… where there is huge support for doing something.
One Democratic Senator is asking Arizona to delay implementing its immigration law for a one year. New York Senator Chuck Schumer - in an act of great chutzpah - tells Arizona governor Jan Brewer the delay would give Congress a chance to pass a federal law, which would be more effective than Arizona's. Brewer says: No way.
She, like the rest of us, has been lied to before. They want another year to do nothing... so they can campaign for the midterms without having to explain to the voters why they refuse to do anything meaningful about border security and illegal immigration.
They're not even any good at covering up their real motives anymore.
Here’s my question to you: How seriously do you take the president and Congress when it comes to immigration reform?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What should Pres. Obama do about Bush tax cuts?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
They're known as the "Bush tax cuts"... but pretty soon they'll be a part of President Obama's legacy too.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/06/art.obama2.jpg caption=""]
That's because Mr. Obama wants the tax cuts - introduced in 2001 and 2003 - to be extended indefinitely for most Americans. They're set to expire at the end of this year though, which means lawmakers must act before then.
These tax cuts lowered income and investment tax rates, increased the child credit and reduced the real estate tax and inequalities for married taxpayers.
And then there's this: Despite the $12 trillion national debt, Pres. Obama isn't calling on Congress to pay for the cost of extending these tax cuts. We're talking about spending more than $2 trillion on his predecessor's tax policy.
But the president does want to raise taxes on the rich. He's proposing letting the tax cuts expire for couples making more than $250,000 - or individuals making more than $200,000.
Critics say that increasing taxes on the rich will hurt small businesses, job growth and the stock market. But Democrats say the plan is fair because middle class Americans are struggling more than the wealthy. So their solution is to take from the well-off and give to the not-as-well-off. You know, redistribute the wealth.
Meanwhile it's not clear when Congress will take up the issue. It might happen before their summer break so they can go home and brag to their constituents about what they've done ahead of the midterm elections.
But the hard truth is this: Extending those tax cuts without paying for them... perhaps by, say, cutting government spending, is just irresponsible.
Here’s my question to you: What should President Obama do about the Bush tax cuts due to expire at the end of the year?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What lessons should U.S. take away from Greece?
A youth spray paints "I will burn you" in Greek on the ground near a line of riot police in Athens. (PHOTO CREDIT: LOUISA GOULIAMAKI/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If the fires and riots in Greece don't get Washington's attention, my guess is a 1,000-point drop in the stock market this afternoon might.
In less than an hour, the Dow Jones industrial average went from down a couple of hundred - to down almost 1,000 points - before rebounding.
The panic was triggered in part by Greece.
Greece is a world-class welfare state… People retire in their 50s and are accustomed to government handouts at every turn. Now the Greek government says "we're going to have to cut back," and people go crazy.
Here in the U.S. we have a growing welfare state: Food stamps, aid to dependent children, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, rent subsidies, welfare and millions of illegal aliens.
We have a $12 trillion debt that we're unable to pay. And while it ain't gonna happen tomorrow… at some point, we're going to be faced with the realization that we can't do it this way anymore. Something's gotta give.
When that day comes there will be cuts. Drastic, Draconian cuts.
Whether it leads to the kind of things we're seeing in Greece is probably a stretch. And we don't know that yet, but suffice it to say that when they start cutting… it's gonna make a lot of people unhappy.
The real tragedy is it's preventable. But no one in Washington has the guts to confront this issue head on.
It's the ultimate act of selfishness and betrayal: We are literally destroying the lives of Americans who haven't been born yet. Our children, our grandchildren and generations to come will suffer the effects of our irresponsible fiscal policy.
Look at Athens. Look at Washington. Do the math.
Here’s my question to you: What lessons should the U.S. take away from what’s happening in Greece?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
U.S. policy on offshore oil drilling?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As thousands of people work to contain that massive oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico - there are serious questions about future U.S. policy when it comes to offshore drilling.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/05/05/art.offshore.drilling.jpg caption=""]
Fisherman, National Guard troops, volunteers and the oil company BP - which is responsible for the leak - are battling the oil spill with everything from steel to fire.
But there are growing concerns that if the oil reaches the shore - it will kill wildlife and damage the jobs of thousands of people in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama and Florida. And the effects will be felt for years in the affected areas.
New offshore drilling has been banned in most U.S. waters since the early 1980s; but just a few weeks ago - President Obama announced plans to expand offshore oil drilling because of the country's energy and economic needs.
He said the federal government would start leasing some areas off the coasts of Virginia, Alaska and potentially Florida to oil companies.
Suddenly that doesn't seem like such a good idea.
The White House now says President Obama's offshore plans aren't set in stone. And a group of Democratic senators says any new plans for offshore drilling are "dead on arrival."
Even Some Republicans are changing their minds - Florida governor Charlie Crist, who has previously supported offshore drilling, now says it's quote "got to tabled, for sure." California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger has withdrawn his support for a plan that would expand drilling off the coast of California.
Here’s my question to you: What should U.S. policy be when it comes to offshore oil drilling?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Majority of Americans support Arizona's immigration law
A Border Patrol vehicle keeps watch beside the border fence that divides the U.S. from Mexico in the town of Nogales, Arizona. (PHOTO CREDIT: MARK RALSTON/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
60 percent of Americans say Arizona's tough new immigration law is "about right" or "doesn't go far enough." Are you listening, Washington?
A new CBS News/New York Times poll shows 51 percent of those surveyed say the law is "about right" and 9 percent say it "doesn't go far enough." 36 percent believe the controversial law - which gives police broad powers to detain people they think are in the country illegally - "goes too far."
This new poll also shows broad majorities of Americans say illegal immigration is a "very serious problem" and that this country's immigration policies need a major overhaul... although people are divided about what the right solution is.
Even though most people think the Arizona law will result in racial profiling and overburden local police forces... large majorities think it will reduce the number of illegal aliens in Arizona, illegal border crossings and crime.
It's pretty clear what's going on here: The issue of illegal immigration has developed into a national crisis - and the American people have had a bellyful of the federal government's unwillingness to address it.
Despite all the rhetoric from our lawmakers, there is no legislation pending in Congress. But more importantly, almost nine years after 9/11 and four days after a terrorist tried to blow up Times Square in New York, the federal government refuses to secure this nation's borders.
Here’s my question to you: What message does it send to Washington that a majority of Americans support Arizona’s new immigration law?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments