Should Pres. Obama drop Biden for Clinton in 2012?
(PHOTO CREDIT: JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama should drop Joe Biden and put Hillary Clinton on the ticket with him if he runs for re-election in 2012.
It's an idea that's getting lots of attention these days... despite the fact that the election is still more than two years away.
This all heated up after a piece on Politico.com this month by former Virginia Governor Douglas Wilder. He says as Secretary of State, Clinton has been nothing but a team player. Wilder says she's been tough and commanding when necessary... as well as graceful and diplomatic. He then compares her to Biden, who as Vice President has continued to make his infamous gaffes.
Wilder also points out that Clinton might be able to help the President win key voting blocs, like middle class Independents and working class voters.
Since the Wilder piece, the idea is popping up all over, from the pages of the Wall Street Journal to Time magazine, AOL's Politics Daily and The Daily Beast.
Some suggest Clinton and Biden should swap roles as Secretary of State and Vice President... while others argue that putting Clinton on the ticket will give Pres. Obama the best shot at re-election.
And then there's the whole notion of President Obama creating yet another historic ticket - with the first female vice president.
As for The White House - it quickly shot down this idea, insisting Joe Biden will continue to be a "trusted partner" for the president.
Of course, this could be a moot point if Mrs. Clinton decides to make another run at the top job.
Here’s my question to you: Should President Obama drop Joe Biden for Hillary Clinton as his running mate in 2012?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Federal workers earning double private sector workers
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
While the economy - with nearly 10 percent unemployment - is struggling to get on its feet, it seems like it's still a pretty good time to work for the federal government.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/12/art.dc.bldgs.jpg caption=""]
USA Today reports that on average, federal employees earn double what private sector workers make. In 2009, federal civil servants earned about $123,000 - that's the total of pay and benefits... compared to $61,000 for private workers.
For nine years in a row, federal workers have been getting bigger pay and benefit increases than private employees... and the compensation gap between the two groups has grown from $30,000 10 years ago to almost $62,000 today.
Unions for public employees insist this is because most federal jobs require a high level of skill and education; and because the government contracts out many lower-paying jobs to the private sector.
But a lot of people don't buy that argument. Critics say federal workers are overpaid. And Republicans in Congress want to cancel the 1.4 percent across-the-board pay hike for federal workers that Pres. Obama is calling for.
Consider this: federal compensation has grown nearly 37 percent since 2000... compared to less than nine percent for private sector employees.
It's no wonder our government can't keep a lid on spending with statistics like this... the federal budget deficit just for the month of July was more than $165 billion. Meanwhile millions of Americans are losing or have lost their jobs, and millions of others have been forced to take a pay cut.
Here’s my question to you: In this economy, should federal workers be earning twice what private sector workers do?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
In light of skyrocketing deficits, is it time to raise taxes?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The Bush tax cuts are an 800 pound gorilla – set to expire January 1st. If Congress does nothing, everyone's taxes will go up. And so far, that's what Congress is doing. Nothing. Some of this nation's best economic minds say it's time to bite the bullet and raise taxes. Economically speaking, this country is going down the toilet.
Former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan initially supported the Bush tax cuts, but now says that they ought to be allowed to expire.
Greenspan thinks higher taxes might mean slower economic growth, but he says it's more important to pay down our massive debt.
That debt has topped $13 trillion, and our annual deficits are sky high, expected to top $1.4 trillion this year.
David Stockman, the former budget director for Pres. Reagan, along with Former Treasury Secretaries Robert Rubin and Paul O'Neill all agree with Greenspan about higher taxes to some degree.
Pres. Obama only wants the tax cuts to expire for individuals making more than $200,000 and families earning more than $250,000.
But most Republicans are opposed; they want to extend all the tax cuts. And some moderate Democrats agree with them; they're concerned that even Pres. Obama's limited tax increase could hurt the weak economic recovery.
Opinions are all over the place on what should happen, but doing nothing is not a good option – unless the government does something about its runaway spending. Don't hold your breath.
Here’s my question to you: In light of skyrocketing deficits, is it time to raise taxes?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is this year's anti-incumbent fever for real?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/11/art.bennet.buck.2shot.cf1.gi.jpg caption ="In Colorado, Republican Ken Buck is challenging incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet."]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
After months of taking a beating, the Democratic party finally got some much-needed good news in yesterday's primaries.
The biggest victory came in Colorado, where Michael Bennet, the candidate backed by President Obama and the party establishment, won handily. After backing several candidates who went on to lose this primary season, the president may have needed this win more than anyone.
Yet, as Politico reports, the best news for the Democrats may have actually come from the Republicans' results – with the GOP nominating candidates who are either vulnerable or plagued by gaffes and scandal.
Take for example, Ken Buck who will face off against Bennet in Colorado. He was backed by the Tea Party but opposed by much of the national GOP leadership. Running against a woman, he was caught on tape saying he should be elected because he doesn't wear high heels. Moron.
In Connecticut, Republicans nominated Linda McMahon for the senate race whose main claim to fame is a big bank account and a past association with professional wrestling.
In Minnesota, Republicans chose Tom Emmer, who is off to a rocky start after suggesting the minimum wage be altered to take tips into account.
And in Nevada, Harry Reid has actually pulled ahead in the polls after his Republican opponent has repeatedly shot herself in the foot by saying one stupid thing after another.
Yesterday's primaries also raise questions about whether the whole narrative of the 2010 elections is true. The anti-incumbent, angry electorate ready to dump insiders may not be the case after all.
While Congress' approval rating remains in the toilet – 19 percent according to Gallup's latest poll – the people who make up that Congress continue to be re-nominated.
Here’s my question to you: Is this year's anti-incumbent fever for real?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How much money makes you rich?
[cnn-photo-caption image= http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/10/art.money.cf6.gi.jpg caption ="How much money makes you rich?"]
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's the American dream, get rich and retire early in the lap of luxury. But just how much money would it take for you to consider yourself rich?
You'd likely get a different answer from every person you asked. There are lots of factors involved: what part of the country you live in, how extravagant your lifestyle is, how much you save, and on and on.
CNNMoney.com takes a look at the question "how rich is rich?" Some of the experts they talked to say it takes between $2 and 12 million in savings to be rich.
One definition of "rich" is being able to live comfortably without working. By that standard, in New York it would take about $300,000 a year to cover living expenses, taxes, plus a monthly spending allowance. For someone wanting to retire at 35, that means they'd need $12 million in savings. Who retires at 35?
But in other parts of the country, about $100,000 a year should be enough to live comfortably – which means you'd need about $4 million in savings to retire at 35. Of course, retiring at 35 doesn't happen for too many people – especially in this economy.
If you're willing and able to keep working until 65, you will only need about $2 million to retire.
According to the Obama administration, $250,000 is the cut-off point that makes someone rich. The president wants to extend the Bush tax cuts for all Americans, except people making more than $250,000 a year. That's about 2 percent of the population.
Here’s my question to you: How much money makes you rich?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why don't some Democrats want to be seen with Pres. Obama?
President Obama attended a fundraiser Monday in Austin, Texas. (PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images/File)
FROM CNN's Jeff Cafferty:
The mid-term elections are shaping up to be an uphill battle for the Democrats.
And here's just one reason why: Presidents who keep their approval rating above 50 percent traditionally see their party lose fewer seats in Congress than presidents with lower approval ratings.
According to Gallup, the average midterm election seat loss for presidents below 50 percent approval is 36 seats in the House of Representatives. That's compared to an average loss of 14 seats for presidents getting higher marks.
The Republicans need to gain 40 seats this year to retake control of the House, which is pretty close to that average of 36 seats.
And none of this is good news for President Obama and the Democrats. Not only is Mr. Obama below the 50 percent mark – but he's approaching 40 percent in some of the polls.
Some Democrats up for election have already figured this out. When President Obama comes into town, they leave.
Just yesterday in Texas, the Democratic candidate for governor, Bill White, was nowhere in sight when Pres. Obama came to Austin and Dallas for fund-raising events.
The week before it was Georgia, where another Democratic candidate for governor, Roy Barnes, decided not to appear with the president.
The White House insists they're not taking it personally, saying it doesn't say anything broadly about the president's coattails... they say there's never been a president who's been wanted by every single candidate around the country to campaign for them. Which is sort of what you'd expect them to say.
Here’s my question to you: Why don't some Democratic candidates want to be seen with President Obama?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Why 56-point difference between blacks & whites on Pres. Obama approval?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty
President Obama has been in office just over a year and a half, and he is getting drastically different marks from whites and blacks.
A CNN-Opinion Research Corporation poll shows there is a 56-point difference between blacks and whites when it comes to the president's approval rating.
A whopping 93% of blacks approve of how Pres. Obama is handling his job, but only 37% of whites do.
Pres. Obama is the nation's first black president, and was supposed to move the country past racial divisions… a tall order to be sure. But, yet the president did receive lots of support from whites as a candidate.
Part of the problem may be that critics are painting this Obama White House as out-of-touch with the American people. Nile Gardener of the London Telegraph points to examples like the First Lady's lavish European vacation, the president's move towards big government and dramatic increases in government borrowing and spending.
Gardener points to extravagance and arrogance among "the White house elites that rule America as though they had been handed some divine right to govern with impunity".
Last Friday, the president chose to fly six miles in Marine One to a sign factory in the Washington, D.C. area rather than drive. Six miles. The helicopter ride took about eight minutes…driving would have taken about 20.
Here’s my question to you: Why is there a 56-point difference between blacks and whites when it comes to Pres. Obama's approval rating?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
60,000 babies born to non-citizens in Texas every year
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
From CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the debate over illegal immigration – and now over the 14th amendment – heats up, consider this:
In Texas alone, there are more than 60,000 babies born to non-citizens every year. These babies automatically become U.S. citizens.
The Dallas Morning News reports that last year these births represented almost 16% of the total births statewide. And, that from 2001 to 2009, there were more than 542,000 births to illegal immigrant women.
Let me repeat, all these babies automatically become U.S. citizens... and we're just talking about Texas here.
This is why some Republicans want to consider changing the Constitution's guarantee of citizenship for anyone born in the United States.
House Minority Leader John Boehner says many illegal immigrants come here just so their children can become U.S. citizens. Boehner points to parts of our country where schools and hospitals are being overrun by illegal aliens.
Other Republicans say if both parents are here illegally, why should there be a reward for that behavior? And they have a point.
But opponents worry about the children, saying they didn't break any laws, yet would have no rights and nowhere to go.
Others claim the whole issue isn't about babies, but rather about politics and using immigration as a wedge issue headed into the midterm elections.
The 14th amendment became law in 1868. It was meant as a way to block states that prevented former slaves from becoming citizens.
Changing it would require a two-thirds vote in both the House and Senate, and approval of three-quarters of the state legislatures. My guess is if it was put to a vote of the people it would pass yesterday.
Here’s my question to you: At least 60,000 babies born to non-citizens every year in Texas alone get U.S. citizenship. What should be done about it?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
First Lady takes glitzy Spanish vacation in current economic climate?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The U.S. economy, with nearly 10% unemployment, has millions of Americans struggling to make ends meet – but you might not know it by watching the First Lady.
Michelle Obama, her youngest daughter, Sasha, and several of the First Lady's "closest friends" are on a glitzy vacation in Spain. They're staying on the southern Mediterranean coast with friends at a luxury hotel.
The resort in Marbella on the Costa del Sol is a playground for the rich and famous... including members of the Saudi Royal family, Spain's jet-setting crowd and Hollywood actors.
The First Lady and her pals are expected to take up 60 to 70 rooms, or more than a third of the whole resort, where prices start at about $400 a night and reportedly go up to $2,500 a night.
A piece in The New York Daily News compares quote "Material girl Michelle Obama [to] a modern-day Marie Antoinette” staying in the lap of luxury and not exactly cutting back in troubled times.
The taxpayers are paying for transportation and housing of an estimated 70 Secret Service agents who will accompany Mrs. Obama, not to mention the cost of Air Force Two.
The Daily News suggests that while the Obamas like to portray themselves as common folk, it doesn't really jibe with what we're seeing. The piece suggests a vacation on the coast of California where money would have pumped into the local economy might have been a more politically astute idea.
Michelle Obama's lavish trip comes at a time when 8 in 10 Americans describe economic conditions as "poor” and the "economy" is overwhelmingly cited as the top problem facing the U.S. today.
Here’s my question to you: What message does it send when the First Lady takes a glitzy vacation to Spain given the current economic climate?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Is Pres. Obama keeping his word on transparency?
(PHOTO CREDIT: Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama promised us the "most transparent" administration in history, but there are growing signs that it's just business as usual in Washington.
Politico.com reports that four times in the last week, the president has quietly attended private and exclusive Democratic Party fund-raisers – all closed to the press.
These events are for the fat cats – big donors, sometimes paying as much as $30,000 to attend. They're held at fancy hotels or at the homes of wealthy supporters.
The White House claims the president had nothing "formal" to say at these small fund-raisers so there was no need to have reporters on hand. They say the rule is if the president makes a speech or formal remarks, the event is open to the press.
But the president is clearly talking to donors at these events. One Democratic source tells Politico that at such a fund-raiser, the president will typically give a brief address to the group, then he might spend about an hour speaking one-on-one, or in small groups, with supporters.
Critics say this is an example of the president backtracking on his promise for openness. And journalists have also tried to get access to these events, with no luck.
You may recall it was at a private fund-raiser in San Francisco that then candidate-Obama was overheard telling donors that working-class people hurt by the economy "get bitter" and "cling to guns or religion." After that firestorm, Obama's campaign said it would allow more press into similar events.
But at least four times in the last week it doesn't seem to be happening.
Here’s my question to you: Pres. Obama promised us the most transparent presidency in history. Is he keeping his word?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments