.
How worried are you about losing your job?
June 12th, 2012
03:54 PM ET

How worried are you about losing your job?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

It's tough enough to hold a job these days without having to constantly worry about losing it.

CNBC.com reports on the five tell-tale signs that your job might be on the chopping block:

1) So-called mergers can spell trouble - because many jobs get duplicated.

2) Getting passed over for a promotion is a bad sign - especially if you're more qualified than whoever gets picked for the job.

3) There may be a pink slip in your future if you're asked to share your files or update another team member on all of your projects. This includes being asked to share passwords, client lists and contact information.

4) If you're assigned to a short-term project that has little to do with your regular job, it could mean your job won't be waiting for you when you're done.

5) A computer can do your job.

Human resources experts suggest there are some things you can do to help keep your job - like asking for feedback, tracking your goals and building a portfolio of all your accomplishments.

But even if you do all the right things, you could still wind up on the street. The U.S. is facing a long-term unemployment crisis. There are nearly 5.5 million people who have been out of work for more than six months.

That's about 43% of all the unemployed. Economists call it a national emergency.

And if you're not already worried about losing your job, all you have to hear is that statistic that the net worth of the average family has declined 40% from 2007 to 2010 and you'll be volunteering to work nights and weekends.

Here’s my question to you: How worried are you about losing your job?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm 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.

Young people are forgoing medical care because of cost. What does that mean for the future?
June 11th, 2012
05:00 PM ET

Young people are forgoing medical care because of cost. What does that mean for the future?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Increasingly young Americans can no longer afford to get sick.

A new report shows that millions of young adults are skipping necessary care because of rising health care costs.

The survey put out by Commonwealth Fund shows 41% of those between 19 and 29-years-old failed to get medical care because it's too expensive. When it comes to uninsured adults, that number jumps to 60%.

There a lot of implications to this - none of them good.

Young adults are not filling prescriptions, not getting recommended tests or treatments, avoiding doctor visits and not seeking specialist care they need.

Doctors say young adults often stop listening to medical advice once they hear how much treatment it will cost.

And those who actually do decide to get medical care wind up with loads of debt.

36% of young adults had problems paying off their medical bills - or paid the bills over time.

Some young people say they've used up all their savings to pay medical bills. Others have taken on credit card debt or have been unable to pay off student loans.

Still others say they've put off education or career plans because of medical money issues; or they say they haven't been able to pay for things like food or rent.

Experts say growing medical debt is in part due to "the tremendous cost shift" to patients because of high-deductibles, co-payments and co-insurance.

The Commonwealth Fund says that President Obama's health care law has helped more young adults get insurance because they can stay on their parents' plans until 26.

But if the Supreme Court strikes down Obamacare - and we'll know soon enough - young Americans might face even more medical troubles.

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

Posted by
Filed under: Health care
What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?
June 11th, 2012
04:00 PM ET

What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The next Congress will be one of the least experienced in decades.

And it might even be more polarized than the current Congress, if that's possible.

Politico reports that the House and Senate will be filled with "rookies and sophomores unbound by the institution's traditions" who have "virtually no experience doing serious legislative work."

It will be hard to tell them apart from the current Congress.

Here's the deal: the 2010 elections brought in a record number of new lawmakers, mostly Republican.

Then there were dozens of retirements in 2012, plus the expected election turnover in November.

All this means the new Congress could have more than 155 members with fewer than four years experience.

Some suggest this is a good thing, that it's time to "throw the bums out" and that the turnover will bring fresh blood into a growingly unpopular institution.

And for good reason. The current Congress is more partisan and less willing to compromise than ever. Plus it could be argued a lot of them don't know what they're doing.

One Democratic congressmen tells Politico, "There are chairmen of subcommittees who don't know which end of the gavel to use, much less how to get a bill through Congress."

As the United States heads for that "fiscal cliff" next year, the makeup of the Congress that will be elected in November is very much a wildcard. We're running out of room to either make mistakes or do nothing.

House Speaker John Boehner insists all these fresh faces have had a positive impact, bringing "energy, enthusiasm and real-world experience" to Washington.

But what have they done for us lately? Nothing. And it might get worse.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if the next Congress is one of the least experienced in decades?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

Posted by
Filed under: Congress
What impact could the Wisconsin recall election have in November?
June 7th, 2012
04:00 PM ET

What impact could the Wisconsin recall election have in November?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

Wisconsin's recall election could be a sign of things to come for unions and Democrats. Republican Gov. Scott Walker's victory is a big deal, and here's why:

Walker recognized the ruinous financial path we're on. He did something about it, and he prevailed. Despite howling from liberal critics, voters in Wisconsin stood by the governor and his effort to limit collective bargaining powers for public-sector workers. If Wisconsin gets it, maybe there's hope for the rest of us.

Consider this: Two of California's biggest cities are also backing moves against unions.

San Diego and San Jose voted overwhelmingly this week to cut the pensions of city government workers to save money. If it can happen in California - the bluest of the blue states - maybe it can happen anywhere, such as Washington, D.C.

Even many Californians understand that the costs of government pensions are killing us.

According to CNNMoney.com, the public pension fund gap for police, firefighters, teachers and other city, county and state employees could be as high as $3 trillion, and that doesn't even include the cost of retiree medical care.

Several city governments have already filed for bankruptcy protection, mostly because of pension costs.

Meanwhile, Walker says the recall results mean that it's now "competitive" there come November. This is a state that Barack Obama won by 14 percentage points last time around.

And it's not just Wisconsin. Other big union states might no longer be automatic check-offs for the president.

For example, former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell is suggesting that his state is "definitely in play."

Here's my question to you: What impact could the Wisconsin recall election have in November?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

Posted by
Filed under: 2012 Election • Jack Cafferty
Do politicians who hang out with celebrities help or hurt themselves?
June 6th, 2012
04:00 PM ET

Do politicians who hang out with celebrities help or hurt themselves?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

As the race for the White House heats up, the candidates are hoping star power can help them raise the big bucks and boost voter enthusiasm.

But Republicans are slamming President Barack Obama - much like they did in 2008 - for his hobnobbing with Hollywood and celebrities.

Obama held New York fund-raisers this week with the theme “Barack on Broadway.” The star-studded events helped the president raise millions for his re-election coffers. On the way to New York, the president hosted rock star Jon Bon Jovi on Air Force One.

The president is due back in New York next week for another fund-raiser at the home of actress Sarah Jessica Parker.

This visit follows the much publicized dinner at the Los Angeles home of George Clooney, where the Obama campaign raked in $15 million. A recent campaign ad featured Vogue editor Anna Wintour, and folks such as Ricky Martin, Barbra Streisand and Spike Lee have appeared at other events for Obama.

The GOP whines about all this at length, saying it just proves the president is out of touch with ordinary Americans - many of them trying to find a job.

In some cases, the Obama campaign hopes it can use celebrities to target key voting blocs, such as women, gays or Hispanics.

And the president isn’t alone here, although Mitt Romney doesn't have the same following among celebrities. Romney's been hanging out at campaign events with folks such as Donald Trump, Kid Rock, Jon Voight and Ted Nugent. No doubt about it, the president has much better celebrities.

But the point is: How much do Americans suffering under a shaky economy and high unemployment care what celebrities have to say about politics? I know I don't.

Here’s my question to you: Do politicians who hang out with celebrities help or hurt themselves?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

What can be done about the deepening polarization in America?
June 6th, 2012
03:22 PM ET

What can be done about the deepening polarization in America?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

The polarization of America is like a cancer that is slowly killing us. And like many forms of cancer, there appears to be no cure.

We are more severely divided now than at any time in the last 25 years according to a new pew study.

And it's not the usual suspects of race, education level, income, gender and religion. Political differences are what's ripping the country apart.

This political divide peaked during the last decade - during the presidencies of George W. Bush and Barack Obama.

The Pew survey finds Democrats and Republicans are most divided on the social safety net for the poor with a 41-point gap between the two parties.

Other issues with huge divisions include: the environment, labor unions, equal opportunity and "government scope and performance."

This deepening polarization is something we see among voters and of course among our so-called leaders in Washington. The government is paralyzed - unable to get over their political differences in order to work together and address the people's business that desperately needs doing.

Perhaps the most serious consequence of partisanship is our skyrocketing national debt - now closing in on $16 trillion.

The Congressional Budget Office says that unless Congress does something about government spending and/or taxes, the federal debt is set to double by the middle of the next decade and will reach twice the size of the whole U.S. economy by 2037. We are committing economic suicide.

But don't expect Washington to do anything about it. There's an election in November.

Here’s my question to you: What can be done about the deepening polarization in America?

Interested to know which ones made it on air?

FULL POST

Posted by
Filed under: Money • Race Relations • Social Issues • United States
What does it mean when 6 in 10 people worry about their children achieving the American dream?
June 5th, 2012
03:55 PM ET

What does it mean when 6 in 10 people worry about their children achieving the American dream?

CNN - A majority of Americans worry about their children achieving the American dream.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll shows that nearly 6 in 10 Americans are dissatisfied with the opportunity for the next generation to live better than their parents.

It's a sad commentary on the state of our country: parents have always dreamed of a brighter future for their children than what they had.

Perhaps not anymore.

The reality is many of us may wind up working longer, and retiring later, than anticipated.

The CEO of the international insurance giant A.I.G. tells Bloomberg News that the retirement age could eventually reach 80 in light of Europe's debt crisis.

As we live longer, raising the retirement age is one way to make pensions and health care more affordable.

As Europe sinks deeper into financial crisis under the weight of massive government debt, a piece in The Daily Beast describes young European adults as the "screwed generation."

In countries like Spain, Greece, Portugal and Italy, the Baby Boomers have held onto generous jobs and benefits leaving little opportunity for their children. In Spain and Greece nearly half of adults under the age of 25 don't work.

There's an increasing sense of hopelessness as young Europeans simply give up on raising families.

And the U.S. could be next.

Young Americans are being crushed by college debt. And even with college degrees, many of them can't find jobs. Consider this: a majority of unemployed Americans older than 25 attended college.

Here’s my question to you: What does it mean when 6 in 10 people worry about their children achieving the American dream?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm 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.

Posted by
Filed under: Children • On Jack's radar
What's the outer limit of reality TV?
(L-R) Angela Rockwood, Tiphany Adams, Mia Schaikewitz, and Auti Angel of Sundance Channel's "Push Girls."
June 5th, 2012
03:50 PM ET

What's the outer limit of reality TV?

(CNN) - Reality TV is set to conquer the final frontier - or try.

A Dutch company says it's planning a reality show about a group of humans colonizing Mars in 2023.

The mission is backed by a co-creator of the show "Big Brother" as well as a Nobel-winning physicist.

The company is billing it as the "biggest media event ever.” They say viewers will follow the selection and training of the colonists and ultimately their settlement on Mars.

It's the next logical step, I suppose, in the phenomenon of reality TV. After all, they've already done about everything else, haven't they?

Just this week, the Sundance Channel launched "Push Girls." It follows the stories of five women in wheelchairs and shows what life is like after paralysis.

Reality TV took off in the 1990s with "The Real World" on MTV. Producers got a group of strangers to live together in a house and just let the cameras roll.

Soon a whole industry was born.

Now there are competition shows such as "Survivor," "The Apprentice" and "The Amazing Race."

And we can check out talent shows such as "American Idol," "Dancing With the Stars" and "America's Got Talent" ... and dating shows such as "The Bachelor" and "The Bachelorette."

There are shows about pregnant teenagers, about families with eight kids ... and with 19 kids, "Real" housewives of various locales, the Jersey Shore, weight loss shows, programs about over-the-top sweet 16 parties as well as pseudo-celebrities such as Paris Hilton and the Kardashians.

From “Survivor” to women in wheelchairs to what next?

Reality shows are cheap to produce and viewers like them. They're television's answer to a prayer.

Here’s my question to you: What's the outer limit of reality TV?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 5pm 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.

Posted by
Filed under: On Jack's radar • Reality TV • Television
When it comes to President Obama, what happened to the magic of 2008?
June 4th, 2012
02:42 PM ET

When it comes to President Obama, what happened to the magic of 2008?

By CNN's Jack Cafferty:

What a difference four years makes.

When Barack Obama ran for president against Hillary Clinton and John McCain in 2008, he was unstoppable.

He generated the kind of excitement and enthusiasm among voters that is rarely seen in politics. People couldn't get enough of him and his messages of hope, change and "yes, we can."

Four years later, a lot of that optimism and excitement are gone.

"How the mighty have fallen" is how Maureen Dowd describes it in her New York Times column headlined "Dreaming of a Superhero." 

"The president who started off with such dazzle now seems incapable of stimulating either the economy or the voters,” she wrote.
The economy remains weak. Friday's dismal jobs report triggered a selloff, and the stock market has now erased all its gains for the year.

As for the voters, a lot of them are disgruntled – including many in the president's own base.

A Forbes column describes how Obama is being left behind by the left wing of his party.

They're frustrated that the president hasn't followed through on key promises like closing Guantanamo Bay, ending the war in Afghanistan or getting tough on Wall Street.

There are anti-Obama e-mails coming from the left that describe a "psychopathic megalomaniac" in the White House and "a cancer in the presidency" – and these are liberals.

Part of this is due to the ugly reality of governing. But you can even see it in the president's campaign events.

There were more than 4,000 empty seats in an Ohio arena that seats 18,000 when the president officially launched his re-election campaign.

That wouldn't have happened four years ago.

Here’s my question to you: When it comes to President Obama, what happened to the magic of 2008?

Tune in to the Situation Room at 4pm 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.

newer posts »