Is the end of the nanny state in the U.S. inevitable?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
At least one in six people in the United States gets government handouts: unemployment insurance, food stamps, Medicaid, rent subsidies, you name it. And lots of Americans get money from more than one of these programs.
Republican Congressman Ron Paul of Texas says we simply cannot afford all the entitlement and welfare programs we currently have. Paul, one of the few voices of reason in Washington when it comes to our debt crisis, is predicting an end to the nanny state in this country.
Paul wrote this on his website on Tuesday:
"Instead of dealing seriously with our situation, so many in Washington would rather allow the chaos that will ensue when all of the dependent people are suddenly cut off. Better to...tell people the difficult truth that government is simply not capable of managing people's lives from cradle to grave as was foolishly promised."
He's right. Think about it. When many of our ancestors came here generations ago, there were no welfare programs like food stamps or rent subsidies. And yet the poor and uneducated, people from places like Italy and Ireland who didn't even speak English, managed to survive and in time actually thrive and prosper in this country.
Back when we had no federal Department of Education our schools were the best in the world. Now they're among the worst.
Before the Department of Housing and Urban Development, our cities were bustling centers of progress and economic growth. Now many of them are in decay or decline with growing poverty and shrinking opportunity. See Detroit. But when people like Paul Ryan talk about cutting government spending on some of this stuff the Democrats get apoplectic.
Here’s my question to you: Is the end of the nanny state in the U.S. inevitable?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Calif. Gov. Brown: U.S. most divided since Civil War. Is he right?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Yesterday marked 150 years since the start of the U.S. Civil War. It was the bloodiest war in U.S. history - a war that divided our nation physically and ideologically and led to 600,000 deaths.
To mark the occasion, President Obama said, "We remember the great cost of the unity and liberty we now enjoy, causes for which so many have laid down their lives."
Liberty, yes. But unity? Not so much.
He's got a front row seat to a circus of a Congress that took six months to come up with a 2011 budget. And they still can't agree on any meaningful cuts going forward. We're a long way from unity.
In an interview in Los Angeles this week, California Governor Jerry Brown said this country is more divided now than at any time since the Civil War. Brown is facing a fierce budget battle with California Republican lawmakers. He said the difficulty he's having working with Republicans in California on the state level mirrors what's going on in Washington.
He's right.
Also look at Wisconsin, Ohio and other places where fundamental divisions are boiling over like we haven't seen maybe since Vietnam.
By the way, Brown has to close a deficit that was as high as $26.6 billion. With a hole like that, good luck on that unity thing.
Here’s my question to you: California Gov. Jerry Brown says the country is the most divided since the Civil War. Is he right?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What does it mean if social welfare benefits make up 1/3 of wages, salaries in U.S.?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Americans have become alarmingly dependent on handouts from Uncle Sam, according to a new report.
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/03/09/art.food.stamps.jpg caption=""]
Government social welfare programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and unemployment insurance made up 35% of all public and private wages and salaries last year. That's more than one-third of all the money Americans earned.
These findings are contained in a study of government data done by TrimTabs Investment Research. In 2000, 21% of all wages and salaries in the United States came from social welfare programs. In 1960, it was just 10%.
One of the economists at TrimTabs says we're in for some difficult times ahead unless this country can get back to at least the 26% ratio it had before the recession started. And she says there are only two ways to do that: Either increase private sector wages and salaries by 35% or cut social welfare benefits by nearly a quarter. Neither of those things is likely to happen.
Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid, the so-called entitlement programs, make up more than 60% of federal spending each year. As the baby boomers get older, retire and need more medical care, the costs for those programs will only go up.
While the squabbling over budget cuts continues on Capitol Hill, you can be sure no one is touching these programs. The $60 billion measure passed by the House last month didn't touch one dime of those three programs.
As the evidence continues to mount that our country is hurtling toward an economic disaster, our government refuses to respond in any meaningful way.
Here’s my question to you: What does it mean if social welfare benefits make up more than 1/3 of all wages and salaries paid in the U.S.?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's the answer to worsening relations between U.S. and Mexico?
(PHOTO CREDIT: MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
Mexican President Felipe Calderon met with President Obama in Washington today.
The two leaders discussed everything from a trucking dispute that has hurt trade to the increasing violence near and around the U.S./Mexico border.
Relations between the two countries are worse than they have been in a long time. Drug gangs rule the streets in many Mexican border towns, and violence is soaring. Since 2006, the year Calderon took office, 34,000 Mexicans have died in drug-related killings.
Three weeks ago, a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent was killed and another agent was injured when their SUV was ambushed on a Mexican highway. It was the first time a U.S. agent had been killed in the line of duty in Mexico in 25 years. Investigators believe that the killers were members of the Zetas, one of Mexico's most dangerous drug cartels.
And the violence continuously spills over the border into the United States.
Authorities in Chandler, Arizona, now say a man who was stabbed and beheaded last fall outside Phoenix was killed for stealing drugs from a Mexican drug gang.
The United States is the market for the drugs... and our government refuses to seal our border with Mexico.
The twin issues of immigration and border security are all but ignored by our federal government which is charged by our constitution with providing for our national security. It's an absolute disgrace.
Here’s my question to you: What's the answer to worsening relations between the U.S. and Mexico?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Time for U.S. to scale back its role in world affairs?
President Obama makes a statement on Libya with Secretary of State Clinton at the White House. (PHOTO CREDIT: JIM WATSON/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
President Obama finally spoke out Wednesday on the crisis in Libya. He condemned the violence against anti-government protesters and announced that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will be meeting with top diplomats on Monday to discuss how to respond to violence in the region.
However, the president stopped short of calling for the resignation of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi or announcing any sanctions the United States would place on that nation.
The president is expected to speak with French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron by phone on Thursday to discuss the unfolding situation in Libya.
All of this happened after the president didn't say anything for the first few days of the crisis. He was reportedly concerned about the safety of Americans inside Libya. It turns out not saying anything is not necessarily a bad thing, according to a new Gallup Poll.
While 66% of Americans think the United States should play either the leading or a major role in resolving international problems, 32% say the United States should be a minor player or not get involved at all. That's up from 23% just two years ago, and at its highest level since 2001.
But as tensions mount and the stakes get higher, which they inevitably do when oil is involved, it's unlikely the United States will remain on the sidelines indefinitely.
Here’s my question to you: Is it time for the U.S. to scale back its role in world affairs?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Getting Americans into the street like Egypt's protesters?
People enter Tahrir Square as news of the possible resignation of Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak seeped out today in Cairo. (PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
They have come for more than two weeks now. Egyptian protesters by the hundreds of thousands filling Tahrir Square and demanding change. Now it looks like they're going to get it.
These courageous people have been risking their lives day in, day out because they have finally had enough.
They've put their lives on the line for political change in a country where many of them have known nothing but Mubarak's regime. This is a country where the median age is 24.
Mubarak has been in power for 30 years.
Mubarak's government became corrupt and inefficient. Egyptian citizens got fed up with high unemployment and a bleak future while their leader, Hosni Mubarak, became one of the wealthiest men in the world, worth as much as $70 billion.
As the days passed, the movement has only grown stronger. Remarkably, it has remained a largely peaceful revolution. There was almost no violence until the day that armed pro-Mubarak thugs rode in on camels and horses.
Some demonstrators paid the ultimate price. Human Rights Watch confirms 300 Egyptians have died during the uprising and they say that number could double or triple or go even higher.
As Americans sit back and watch this history unfold from the comfort of our living rooms, it's hard to imagine what - if anything - could compel us in 2011 to do the same.
We did once, but that was long ago and much has changed. How bad would things need to get in the United States for Americans to stand up and demand change?
Here’s my question to you: What would it take to get Americans into the street like Egypt's protesters?
U.S. withhold any of $1.5 billion in aid to Egypt?
Egyptian protesters take part in a demonstration today on Cairo's Tahrir Square. (PHOTO CREDIT: MOHAMMED ABED/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As Egyptian protesters demanding reform fill the streets by the hundreds of thousands, it's worth remembering that the U.S. helps control the purse strings in that country.
American taxpayers give $1.5 billion dollars a year in foreign aid to Egypt, second only to Israel.
Although the White House has said it's reviewing this aid depending on the military's behavior - One top Republican says now is not the time to threaten to withhold any of this money.
Congresswoman Kay Granger - who chairs the house subcommittee in charge of foreign aid - says we shouldn't use the money as a stick to force Mubarak into reforms.
Granger says most of the $1.5 billion goes toward the military - which seems to be a stabilizing force among the demonstrators.
Granger says Congress should only consider withholding aid if there's evidence that U.S. military equipment is being used improperly.
Several top Democrats are on the same page, saying the U.S. should remain committed to assisting Egypt. They point to the close relationship between the two countries.
Nonetheless, some experts think cutting financial aid is the best way to get results.
A bipartisan group of former officials says the administration should suspend all aid to Egypt until the government:
Agrees to elections as soon as possible, allows banned candidates to run, immediately lifts the state of emergency that's been in place for decades, releases political prisoners, and allows for freedom of the media and assembly.
Here’s my question to you: Should the U.S. withhold any of its $1.5 billion in financial aid to Egypt?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
What's behind America's surge in optimism?
President Barack Obama walks along the colonnade from the Oval Office this morning. He is set to deliver his State of the Union address tonight at 9 p.m. ET. (PHOTO CREDIT: JEWEL SAMAD/AFP/Getty Images)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
As President Obama gets ready to deliver his State of the Union address in just a few hours, a new poll shows Americans are feeling better about the state of that union than they have in almost four years.
The CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll shows 43 percent of those surveyed say things are going well in the U.S. - that's up 14 points in just a month.
A majority - 56 percent - still say things are going badly. But that number is down sharply from 71 percent last month.
The poll shows college graduates and people in the Midwest are most optimistic. Also, urban and suburban Americans seem more optimistic than those in rural areas.
There's a partisan divide here too - with Democrats and Independents more likely to say things are going well than Republicans.
So why the sharp increase and why now?
Experts say part of the reason is the public's growing optimism about the economy.
But there are non-economic reasons at play here as well:
People are often more optimistic at the start of a new year. Other factors could include:Tthe more civil tone in political debate since the Tucson shootings, the fact that there wasn't a terror attack over the holidays, and the perception that the lame duck Congress actually accomplished some things in December.
Whatever the reason, we'll take it. And the rise in optimism means the president should be playing to a friendlier crowd tonight.
Here’s my question to you: What's behind America's surge in optimism?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Competency test for presidential candidates?
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
The 2012 presidential campaign will soon go into high gear; but before it does, here's an idea worth considering:
[cnn-photo-caption image=http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2011/images/01/24/art.palin.jpg caption=""]
What if you had to pass a competency test in order to run for president? You know, prove to the voters that you have some sort of a clue.
It might go a long way toward eliminating some of the intellectual lightweights who have tried to pass themselves off as presidential timber in the past.
An evangelical supporter of Mitt Romney is calling on Christian conservatives to consider "a new litmus test" beyond the traditional cultural issues.
Politico got hold of the memo Mark DeMoss sent to 200 pastors, donors and intellectuals on the Christian right.
In it, DeMoss writes that a candidate "should be capable of becoming president, and then competent to be the president." What a concept!
He thinks Romney is the answer - since he can raise the money to mount a campaign against President Obama, is doing well in the polls and has a business background.
DeMoss seems to take a swipe at some of the other contenders. He says a candidate's values alone aren't enough to get his vote: "my pastor shares my values, but I don't want him to be my president."
This could be aimed at Mike Huckabee.
Then there's this: "By the way, 'energizing a crowd' is also not enough; Justin Bieber can do that - but I don't want him to be president either."
Are you listening, Sarah Palin?
Putting aside this guy's support for Romney, a competency test for the next leader of the free world doesn't sound like such a bad idea.
Here’s my question to you: Should presidential candidates have to pass a competency test?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
Will Tucson massacre change tone of political debate?
(PHOTO CREDIT: GETTY IMAGES)
FROM CNN's Jack Cafferty:
It was one of President Obama's finer moments.
Speaking to a full auditorium in Tucson - and the wider television audience of a grieving nation - the president told Americans, "We can be better."
In light of the massacre of innocents and a country more divided than ever, Mr. Obama said it's time to talk to each other "in a way that heals, not in a way that wounds."
As he eulogized the dead, the president said while we may not be able to stop all evil in the world, how we treat one another is entirely up to us. Mr. Obama spoke at length about Christina Taylor Green, the 9-year-old girl who was killed, saying that he wants "our democracy to be as good as she imagined it."
The president walked a fine line as he tried to stay above the partisan blame game that has evolved since this tragedy. He said, "the forces that divide us are not as strong as the forces that unite us."
Many believe the speech was just what the doctor ordered for a country reeling from the shootings and weary of years of divisive politics. But in the long run how much will it matter?
There's still a dark side to what happened in Tucson last weekend. A very dark side.
An aide to Sarah Palin says there are a record number of death threats against Palin since the Arizona shootings. Her aides are looking to step up her security.
This stuff is ugly and scary and very much begs the question of what we are becoming.
Here’s my question to you: Will the Tucson massacre change the tone of the political debate in this country?
Interested to know which ones made it on air?
@jackcafferty on Twitter
Recent Comments