Is it more important for a president to be able to handle the economy or to be likable?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With the election just three months away and the economy struggling, a new poll suggests Americans overwhelmingly trust Mitt Romney to get the economy back on track.
The USA Today/Gallup poll shows by more than 2-to-1 - 63% to 29% - Americans say Romney's business background would help him to make good decisions about the economy.
The Obama campaign better take note. This poll suggests the president's strategy of relentless attacks on Romney's record at Bain Capital and his business background could backfire - big time.
With unemployment above 8% for 41 months, Americans might not care about what Romney did 10 years ago. What they care about is someone fixing the economy today. In fact, a lot of voters probably find Romney's business background to be a plus.
Meanwhile, the president has his own strengths over his GOP rival. This same poll shows by a margin of 2-to-1 that voters say Obama is more likable than Romney. By wide margins, voters say the president understands their problems better and that he's more honest and trustworthy than Romney.
Which sets up an interesting dilemma come Election Day:
Will Americans vote for the candidate who they believe can fix the economy - the nation's top issue - or the one they like more?
Here’s my question to you: Is it more important for a president to be able to handle the economy or to be likable?
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.
Should we cut 10 percent of federal workers instead of cutting defense?
By CNN's Jack Cafferty:
With mandatory federal spending cuts looming on the horizon, some Republicans say we should cut 10% of the federal work force instead of slashing the Defense budget.
Writing in Politico, Congressman Tom Price of Georgia and Congresswoman Vicky Hartzler of Missouri warn that the planned defense cuts would have "devastating consequences."
They say it would mean layoffs for more than 200,000 members of the military. In effect, downsizing our military to the lowest levels in decades.
They say we could be risking national security if we can't keep up militarily with the rest of the world.
The House Armed Services chairman describes cuts to the defense department this way: "We're past cutting the fat and past the muscle. Now we're cutting into the bone."
Price and Hartzler argue for a House Republican plan that would put off these defense cuts for one year. They would do this by trimming the federal workforce by 10% "through attrition."
In other words, for every three federal workers who leave their jobs, departments could only hire one worker.
It's no secret the federal workforce has long been criticized as bloated and inefficient and could probably stand a haircut.
Meanwhile these upcoming spending cuts all go back to the so-called Super Committee's inability to agree to a deficit reduction plan.
Its failure meant $1.2 trillion in across-the-board cuts over the next decade. About half are expected to affect the defense budget.
Meanwhile these cuts don't even begin to put a dent in government spending. We are still running annual deficits of more than $1 trillion.
Here’s my question to you: Should we cut 10% of federal workers instead of cutting defense?
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