1 in 5 U.S. children living below poverty line
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A sobering picture of what's ahead for this nation's children... more than 20 percent of them - one in five - are living below the poverty line.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/09/art.kid.jpg caption=""]
A new study shows the economic well-being of families has plummeted to levels not seen since the 1970s... thanks to the recession, job losses and declines in income.
Here are some of the very disturbing findings in the report funded by a private philanthropy group:
- 15.6 million children are estimated to be living in poverty
- As many as 500-thousand children may be homeless
- 20 million children live in families where neither parent has secure employment
- And in the last 3 years... an additional 750,000 children live in households that don't have access to enough safe and nutritious food
- And eating more processed and fast foods means a potential increase in obesity and all the problems that go with that
As for education - which may be one of the few tickets out of poverty - there's no good news on that front either.
This report suggests the amount of time spent in school may even go down... with some states moving to shorter school weeks to save money.
Experts say that chaotic childhoods have a significant effect on health later in life - people who grow up under lots of stress have higher rates of cancer, liver disease, respiratory disease and other ailments.
How are kids expected to get a fair start with all this weighing against them?
There's one small reason to be hopeful, though. The study's authors say children's quality of life overall should start edging up... but that depends on the economy.
Here’s my question to you: What does the future hold if more than 1 in 5 American children are living below the poverty line?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will you vote to re-elect your member of Congress in Nov.?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With only five months before the midterm elections - fewer than one in three Americans say they plan to vote for their member of Congress in November.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/09/art.voting.jpg caption=""]
A new Washington Post/ABC News poll shows an increasing dislike of elected officials and the anti-incumbent mood at an all-time high. It's about time…
Only 29 percent of those surveyed say they plan to vote for their House representative. That's even lower than in 1994 - when the Democrats were swept out of power. 69 percent say they they're dissatisfied or angry with the government.
Of course Republicans are hoping for big gains; but it might not be that easy. This poll also shows a majority of people have a negative view of the GOP's policies; and only one-third say they trust Republicans over Democrats to handle the country's problems. As for the Tea Party, half of the public has an unfavorable view of them.
Meanwhile voters across the country went to the polls yesterday for the busiest primary day so far this year.
And the results were mixed.
It was a big day for women candidates - in California, Republican primary voters overwhelmingly chose two female business executives. Former Hewlett-Packard head Carly Fiorina will go on to face longtime Senate fixture Democrat Barbara Boxer; and former eBay CEO and billionaire Meg Whitman will run for governor.
In Nevada - the Tea Party-backed candidate, Sharron Angle won the Republican primary and will now challenge Majority Leader Harry Reid in November.
And in Arkansas, Democratic Senator Blanche Lincoln managed to hold onto her seat in a tight race... no doubt giving hope to incumbents everywhere.
Here's my question to you: Do you plan to vote to re-elect your member of Congress in November?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How does Pres. Obama get out from under oil spill?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Pres. Obama wants Americans to know that he's finally very angry about the Gulf oil spill.
He is so worked up that he told NBC that he's met with experts about the spill to learn quote "whose ass to kick."
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/08/art.obama.oil.jpg caption=" Pres. Obama, Coast Guard Admiral Thad Allen (R), and White House energy adviser Carol Browner discuss the Obama administration's response to the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill. "]
But here's the problem: Seven weeks into this crisis, the public isn't too pleased with Mr. Obama's response to America's worst environmental disaster ever... and it seems like this oil spill could swallow the president up along with thousands of miles of coastline.
A new ABC News/Washington Post poll shows 69 percent of those surveyed rate the federal response to the oil spill negatively. That's worse than the rating for the federal response to Hurricane Katrina.
Not good.
And a new Gallup Poll shows that more Americans disapprove of the president's handling of the oil spill. And the president's 40 percent approval rating on the oil spill trails his overall job rating by seven points.
These poll results come despite the fact that the White House has been working aggressively to address criticism of how they've responded.
The president has returned several times to the Gulf... and it seems each time we hear him speak, he's trying to show more emotion and passion.
Trouble is at this point, some of it comes across as contrived. "Whose ass to kick," is not Obama's style.
The fact is this "accident" in the Gulf may prove to be a serious stumbling block in Mr. Obama's young presidency... and could jeopardize his ability to push through his agenda. Even some liberals are beginning to desert him.
Here’s my question to you: How does President Obama get out from under the oil spill?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Afghanistan war = America's longest. Worth it?
(PHOTO CREDIT: TAUSEEF MUSTAFA/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. war in Afghanistan by some counts is now the longest war in American history.
It's been 104 months since October 2001 and the start of a hugely popular mission in the aftermath of 9/11.
That's longer than World War II. And that's longer than Vietnam - it was 103 months from the passage of the Gulf of Tonkin resolution to the withdrawal of the last U.S. troops there.
It's worth noting some insist that Vietnam is still the longer war; that American servicemen were taking casualties there as early as 1961 - long before the Gulf of Tonkin resolution.
At first, Afghanistan seemed like a cake walk. Within months, the U.S. had driven the Taliban from the capital city of Kabul. And Kandahar, the headquarters of the terrorist group, was in U.S. sights. In fact, on the one-year anniversary - then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said: "The Taliban are gone. The Al Qaeda are gone."
But instead of finishing the job in Afghanistan we invaded Iraq and now nine years later the Taliban seem more dangerous than ever. President Obama recently ordered an additional 30,000 U.S. troops into the war in Afghanistan.
Of course, sadly, that means the deaths of U.S. service members continue... recently passing the 1,000 mark. Yesterday was the deadliest day for coalition forces in Afghanistan this year.
But warfare has changed a lot, and the military death toll in Afghanistan is nowhere near the 58,000 U.S. troops lost in Vietnam or the 400,000 who lost their lives in World War II.
Here’s my question to you: Technically the war in Afghanistan is now America's longest. Has it been worth it?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What if pharmaceutical companies' influence led W.H.O. to exaggerate swine flu threat?
(PHOTO CREDIT: CESAR MANSO/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Remember the swine flu?
Fears of a global pandemic, millions of deaths, shortages of vaccines... and on and on? What we wound up with - fortunately - didn't even come close. There were far fewer deaths than expected and more than 70 million unused doses of the newly created H1N1 vaccine - in the U.S. alone.
And now there's this: Two reports in Europe say the World Health Organization vastly exaggerated the swine flu threat. They say decisions were poorly explained and not transparent enough; and that's why public trust in the W.H.O. is "plummeting."
These reports suggest the UN's health agency didn't disclose possible ties to the pharmaceutical industry when recommending how countries should respond.
They say the W.H.O. caused widespread and unnecessary fear - and caused countries to waste millions of dollars. All the while - and here is the kicker - the agency was getting advice from experts who were on the payroll of the pharmaceutical companies that manufactured the swine flu vaccine.
The W.H.O. says claims that this was a fake pandemic are "irresponsible" and they insist that the organization was never improperly influenced by the pharmaceutical industry.
Sure.
Other experts are defending the health organization, too... saying they made the best decisions they could under the circumstances.
Sure.
Nevertheless, in light of the charges... the W.H.O. has launched two investigations.
Here’s my question to you: What if influence from pharmaceutical companies led the World Health Organization to exaggerate the swine flu threat?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Past time for ethics committee to release findings on Rangel?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
What are they waiting for? It's been almost two years since the house ethics committee started investigating Congressman Charlie Rangel... and so far - nothing.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/07/art.rangel.jpg caption="Congressman Charlie Rangel"]
Meanwhile the 79-year-old New York lawmaker has filed for re-election. Rangel wants to run for his 21st term in the house; but first he has to win the Democratic party primary on September 14.
So will the ethics committee release its report before then? If they do... and if the report is damaging... Rangel could be toast. But, if they hold the report until after the election - chances are Rangel will win again. This could also raise political questions about the timing of the report.
As one Democrat tells Politico: "It would let everyone say that this is a cover up, that it's just the same old ethics system." And that's right on the money. Remember when the Democrats took control of the house in 2006? Nancy Pelosi promised they would "drain the swamp" after a decade of Republican rule. Sure.
The leaders of the ethics committee aren't commenting on the Rangel case. For his part, Rangel insists he's innocent - that no wrongdoing has been found. He says he gave up his powerful chairmanship of the ways and means committee so he wouldn't be a target for Republicans.
Nonetheless, Rangel is being investigated for a wide range of allegations - from using his chairmanship to raise money for a public service center that carries his name... to failing to pay taxes on income from a home in the Dominican Republic... to hiding hundreds of thousands of dollars in assets and income on a financial disclosure form.
Here’s my question to you: Isn't it past time for the House Ethics Committee to release its findings on Congressman Charlie Rangel?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much do you worry about $13-trillion federal debt?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
If this doesn't scare you, it should:
Our national debt is increasing at the rate of $5 billion a day and has now passed a record $13-trillion. Since President Obama has taken office, the debt has increased $2.4-trillion in less than 17 months. Staggering.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/02/17/art.debt.clock.jpg caption=" FILE PHOTO: A shot of the National Debt Clock on July 13, 2009. "]
We are in a fiscal crisis every bit as serious as the environmental crisis in the Gulf. And the implications are even more dire.
It doesn't really matter whose fault it is. And blaming someone doesn't make it all right. We, the taxpayers, are the ones who will have to pay.
A piece on CNNMoney.com called "Why U.S. Debt Matters to You" describes how this burden won't only fall on future generations - it will affect all of us.
Several problems could happen sooner rather than later, including slower economic growth and higher interest payments.
Some say if something isn't done soon, the U.S. could face a debt crisis in as few as five years. But nothing is being done; and nothing probably will be. See, there is an election in November and the gutless people we elect to run the country won't do anything until after that - if they even do anything then.
The president has appointed a commission to study the problem. It's pretty much worthless - has absolutely no power to change anything... just make recommendations which aren't due until December.
How many $5-billion-dollar days is that?
Meantime the country is like one of those Toyotas with the accelerator stuck... going faster and faster straight for disaster. And nobody cares.
Here’s my question to you: How much do you worry about the $13-trillion federal debt?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why does Pres. Obama seem to have lost his touch?
(PHOTO CREDIT: SAUL LOEB/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
For a man who was invincible on the campaign trail - Barack Obama seems to have lost some of his magic since he got to the White House.
Politico reports how a series of recent missteps has the president's team struggling to regain its touch. One top Democrat says, it's baffling "how one group of people can be so good at campaigning and so bad at politics."
First, the White House has come under fire for trying - and failing - to coax two Democratic Senate candidates out of running for office... by offering them administration jobs.
Lots of presidents do these things. The problem here is, they got caught and it runs counter to Mr. Obama's big themes of transparency and grass-roots empowerment. No more "politics as usual," etc. ...
Then there's the crisis in the Gulf. A catastrophic environmental disaster the likes of which we have never seen before. The president spends three hours on the beach in Louisiana and then goes to Chicago on vacation. And this happens weeks after the oil began gushing from the busted well on the ocean floor.
Like it or not, there are times when a president is called upon to be a father figure to the nation… to sympathize, comfort and reassure us when things are bad. It's what made Reagan and Clinton so popular.
Whatever happened to that firebrand, charismatic speaker who made a thrill go up Chris Matthews' leg?
The president is in trouble.
As Barack Obama marks 500 days in office - a new average of polls shows only 48 percent of the public approves of the job he's doing . And those numbers aren't good enough if he plans to spend more than four years running the country.
Here’s my question to you: Why does President Obama seem to have lost his touch?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Police can give speeding tickets if they 'think' car is going too fast
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
In Ohio, if a cop says it looked like you were speeding, he can write you a ticket - no proof needed. Makes things so much easier for law enforcement if they don't have to be bothered with the burden of proof. True story.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/06/03/art.speeding.jpg caption=" "]
The state's supreme court ruled five-to-one that independent verification of a driver's speed isn't necessary... things like laser guns or radar or actually clocking how fast you're going. The court says an officer's visual estimate will work as long as the officer is trained, certified by a training academy and experienced in finding speeders.
Supporters say that officers undergo extensive training where they have to visually estimate the speed of vehicles within one or two miles per hour of the actual speed.
Nonetheless, law enforcement officials insist they won't be getting rid of their speed guns; and that it's rare for officers to give tickets based solely on their observations. But the state's highest court says if they want to, it's quite all right.
The case stemmed from the appeal of a traffic ticket issued near Akron, Ohio in 2008.
In that case, a police officer ticketed a driver because he said it looked like the driver was going too fast.
Without any technical assistance, the cop determined that the motorist was going 70 miles-per-hour when the speed limit was 60. The driver says the court's decision "stinks." The driver is right.
Here's my question to you: What else will police be able to do without proof if they can now give speeding tickets if they simply "think" a car is going too fast?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments