Is it time to do away with national political conventions?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As the Democrats and Republicans prepare to host their national conventions in the coming weeks, some wonder if it's even worth throwing these big pep rallies anymore.
For starters, the Democrats are facing numerous problems when it comes to their convention in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Some Democrats aren't even going to attend, saying they'd rather stay home and campaign instead.
The Democrats are millions of dollars behind Republicans in fundraising for the convention - Since President Obama is refusing corporate donations.
Pres. Obama carried North Carolina four years ago, but he has major problems there this year. Voters amended the state constitution to outlaw gay marriage. The unions are steamed because there are no unionized hotels in Charlotte. There is a sexual harassment scandal rocking the North Carolina Democratic Party, and the state has a very unpopular sitting Democratic governor.
It's probably no coincidence that the Democrats have already shortened their convention by a day.
But it's not just the Democrats. Some Republicans are also skipping their party's convention in Tampa.
The fact is these political conventions are expensive, 4-day long parties - and they still get tens of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding. Not exactly a top priority for most of us taxpayers when you consider all the other places that money could go.
Plus it's not like there's any surprise or drama when the candidates and their running mates are generally known long before the conventions.
Former Mississippi governor and RNC chairman Haley Barbour told Politico he would prefer 3-day conventions instead of four:
"Nobody would know the difference besides some bartenders and restaurateurs in the host city."
Here’s my question to you: Is it time to do away with national political conventions?
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.
What does race have to do with achieving the American Dream?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Turns out the American Dream may not be for everyone.
A new report by the Pew Charitable Trusts shows that a family's race, economic background and neighborhood play a role in economic mobility.
The study finds that while 84% of Americans have higher incomes than their parents did at the same age, those born at the top and bottom of the income ladder are likely to stay there.
When it comes to race, African-Americans are less likely to top their parents' income and wealth than whites are. And blacks are more likely to be stuck at the bottom of the ladder or fall out of the middle.
This study couldn't even measure black mobility in the upper income levels because the number was too small.
Meanwhile here's another piece to the wealth inequality puzzle:
Recent Census Bureau data shows that white Americans have 22 times more wealth than blacks. Twenty-two times.
In 2010 the median household net worth for whites was about $111,000 compared to less than $5,000 for blacks.
Whites also have 15 times more wealth than hispanics.
This wealth inequality is due to many factors including the implosion of the real estate market along with higher unemployment rates among minority groups.
Statistics like these are one of the many reasons why President Obama is such an historical figure.
He is america's first ever African-American president - with a background that certainly wasn't privileged. But Mr. Obama is the exception, not the rule.
And the rule is, if you're born poor, you're probably going to stay that way.
Here’s my question to you: What does race have to do with achieving the American Dream?
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.
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments