Is a second American revolution coming?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The first one started with the Boston Tea Party. More than 230 years later, some think the time is ripe for a second American revolution.
An editorial in "Investors Business Daily" suggests people are now asking if the government does more harm than good—and if we should change what it does and the way it does it.
Much of the blame is laid on what it calls the "imperial presidency." It says that through his policies – like record spending and deficits, taxes, health care, etc. -President Obama is "diminishing America from within".
And there are growing signs that many Americans have had a bellyful of President Obama's policies.
Start with health care. 71 percent of Missouri voters supported a measure that would forbid the federal government from penalizing people who don't buy health insurance as mandated under President Obama's health care law.
And it's not just Missouri. Five states have passed similar bills, and two other states will have constitutional amendments on their November ballots to opt out of all, or part of, the new health care law.
There's immigration, which one day may be seen as the turning point in this struggle. While the federal government refuses to enforce the nation's immigration laws and refuses to secure our borders – it's going after Arizona in court for trying to protect its own citizens from an invasion of illegal aliens.
One Arizona sheriff says the federal government "has become our enemy and is taking us to court at a time when we need help." A Mexican drug cartel has reportedly offered $1 million to kill another Arizona sheriff, the controversial Joe Arpaio.
Things are getting very ugly. No surprise the president's approval ratings continue to decline. In some of the major polls, it's now approaching 40 percent.
Here’s my question to you: Is a second American revolution coming?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
'Impossible' to know number of agencies, commissions created by health care law
(PHOTO CREDIT: THINKSTOCK)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
A sprawling bureaucratic giant - nobody knows how big it will be. That seems to be the result of President Obama's new health care law.
According to Politico, a recent report says it's "impossible" to estimate the number of agencies, boards and commissions created by the new law.
The Congressional Research Service report points to many reasons for this. First off, the parts of the law that create new bodies vary drastically. In some cases – the law gives lots of details... in other cases, barely a mention.
Also, the law authorizes some new entities... without saying who will do the appointing, or when it will happen.
And all this means some agencies could wait indefinitely for staff and funding... while others could multiply... creating quote "an indeterminate number of new organizations."
So far this is shaping up to be exactly what the critics were afraid it would be.
For example, there's one provision in the health care law that requires six separate agencies - six - within Health and Human Services to each establish an Office of Minority Health.
One Alaska health task force was supposed to meet by May 7... it held its first meeting July 16. Another committee on breast cancer was supposed to be set up by May 22. It's August 3 and it's still reviewing nominations for committee members.
There are also questions about the ability of Congress to carry out oversight of this sprawling mess. And there are concerns about the the number of appointments the General Accounting Office gets to make - at least 83 new members to six new boards.
Here’s my question to you: How will the government manage our health care if it's "impossible" to know the number of agencies, boards and commissions created by the new health care law?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
How early is too early for presidential campaign to begin?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Right now, it's all about the 2010 midterm elections... or is it? As soon as the polls close on November 2 and the winners are announced, the focus will shift to the presidential race of 2012.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/03/art.hat.jpg caption=""]
Even though that may seem far away... for some, the presidential campaign has already begun.
Potential Republican hopefuls are already logging multiple visits to key early states - like Iowa and New Hampshire.
Minnesota Governor Tim Pawlenty.... he's set to make his fifth visit to Iowa next week... he's also made three trips to New Hampshire.
Pawlenty insists he won't decide whether or not to run until early next year. Maybe… but in the meantime he's working it.... big-time. Meeting local politicians, shaking hands with voters, making speeches about how to fix the country, talking about his blue-collar background, raising money for his political action committee... you get the idea.
And Pawlenty is not the only one. Far from it.
According to Radio Iowa, since the 2008 presidential race ended, the following politicians have been to Iowa multiple times: former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, and former Arkansas Governor Mike Huckabee. Also, former Governors Sarah Palin, Mitt Romney and George Pataki have each been once.
It could very well be one of this crop who hopes to unseat Pres. Obama.
For the rest of us, this means before you know it… we'll be bombarded daily with polls and television ads and fund-raising pleas and debates... and all the wonderful things that go along with a presidential campaign. Wolf is positively giddy in anticipation.
Here’s my question to you: How early is too early for another presidential campaign to begin?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will ethics issues haunt the Democrats come Nov.?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Remember when Nancy Pelosi promised to "drain the swamp" after the Democrats took control of the House a few years back? Well turns out some of her high-profile Democratic colleagues may be swimming in that very swamp.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/02/art.donkey.jpg caption=""]
Two senior Democrats in the House of Representatives now face possible ethics trials - which is just about the last thing Democrats need headed into what's already shaping up to be a brutal midterm election.
Long-time New York Congressman Charlie Rangel has been formally charged with 13 counts of violating House ethics rules... including not paying taxes on rental income from the Dominican Republic.
Several House Democrats have already called on Rangel, a 20-term veteran, to resign.... and President Obama says he hopes Rangel can "end his career with dignity."
Then there's California Congresswoman Maxine Waters. Today, the ethics panel charged her with breaking House rules by using her position to get federal bailout money for a bank with ties to her husband.
While Rangel admits to making mistakes... Waters insists she's done nothing wrong.
For their part, top Democrats insist these potential trials show that the ethics process is working. We'll see about that.
Really? They're both still there.
Meanwhile, this could create a situation similar to elections past where ethics scandals dominated the news... and control of the House passed from one party to the other.
In 2006, the Republicans ran into a series of scandals... including then-Senate Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Congressman Duke Cunningham.
They lost the House to the Democrats.
In 1994 - it was the Democrats that lost the House... amid allegations that top Democrats misused funds from the House Post Office.
Here’s my question to you: Will ethics issues haunt the Democrats come November?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Are Palin's low approval ratings the media's fault?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It's the media's fault... or at least that's where politicians like to lay the blame for almost anything that goes wrong.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2010/images/08/02/art.palin.media.jpg caption=""]
Enter Sarah Palin... the former half-term Alaska governor is blaming her poor approval ratings among Independents on... you guessed it - the media.
Palin told the F-word network, where she's a paid commentator, that:
"I don't blame people for not really knowing... what I stand for or what my record is because if I believed everything that I read or heard in the media, I wouldn't like me either."
Palin didn't want to talk about what she calls "fickle" polls...
That's probably because recent polling shows while Palin remains popular with the Republican base, most of the rest of America doesn't like her.
She gets an "unfavorable" rating from majorities of Democrats, Independents, people in urban and suburban areas... along with those in the northeast, midwest, and west. Kinda tough to build a coalition with those numbers.
So what about 2012? Palin insists that's not where her focus is right now.
Meanwhile - Palin is stepping into the immigration debate... saying that Arizona's Governor Jan Brewer has "the cojones that our president does not" when it comes to securing the country's borders.
Palin is blasting Mr. Obama for suing Arizona to block its controversial new law while not going after sanctuary cities that harbor illegal aliens and, like our federal government, refuse to enforce the nation's immigration laws.
As for the economy, Palin says it's "idiotic" to consider letting the Bush tax cuts for wealthier Americans expire in the current economic climate.
Here’s my question to you: Are Sarah Palin's low approval ratings the media's fault?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments