Return to Transcripts main page
Boston Bombings Threaten Immigration Reform; Small Government Vs. Security; Threat of Cyber-Terrorism Explored; FAA Funded by Federal Government for Air Traffic Controllers; U.S. Economy Grows Healthily in First Quarter 2013
Aired April 28, 2013 - 15:00 ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
CHRISTINE ROMANS, CNN HOST: Three dead in the blast, more than 200 injured. Nearly two weeks now after the bombings, Boston is slowly getting back to normal.
But as the country mourns the dead, comforts the injured, and pursues the how and why of this attack, another question has emerged -- has the outrage over the Boston bombings doomed immigration reform?
I'm Christine Romans and this is YOUR MONEY.
Last year, the United States handed out more than 1 million green cards. There are an estimated 13.1 million green cardholders in this country. One of them was Tamerlan Tsarnaev, the older brother suspected in this attack, killed in a gunfight with police.
The United States also naturalized more than 750,000 citizens last year, new citizens including Dzhokhar Tsarnaev. He's the 19-year-old younger brother, now charged with using a weapon of mass destruction. He is an American.
Both brothers in the United States legally, both brothers accused of perpetrating terrorism against a country that embraced them, and all of this as the Senate begins consideration of a bipartisan bill to reform the U.S. immigration system. It would allocate $3 billion for tighter border security, provide a path to citizenship for about 11 million people in the country illegally, undocumented immigrants, and create new guest worker programs.
Now, some conservatives say what happened in Boston should delay this effort until we learn more about how the system failed. Liberals say opponents of immigration reform are exploiting the bombing.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
SEN. PATRICK LEAHY (D), VERMONT: Let no one be so cruel as to try to use a heinous acts of these two young men last week to derail the dreams and futures of millions of hard-working people.
SEN. CHUCK GRASSLEY (R), IOWA: I think we're taking advantage of an opportunity when once in 25 years we deal with immigration to make sure that every base is covered.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: This debate is about citizenship, who deserves it and who doesn't. Does what happened in Boston make immigration reform more urgent or will it kill this effort all together?
Radio host Michael Cutler is a retired agent from the immigration and naturalization service. Ana Navarro is a Republican strategist and CNN contributor.
Michael, you say the Boston bombing should change everything about what we think about immigration. What do you mean?
MICHAEL CUTLER, RETIRED SENIOR SPECIAL AGENT, INS: Absolutely. Look, this idea of focusing purely on the Mexican border is short sighted. We need to look at the immigration system as a system.
There's so much fraud in the immigration benefits program. And, in fact, not only did these brothers get lawful status, they were given political asylum, the Boston bombers. They have to articulate a credible fear.
They did. Their parents did. The parents are back in Russia, the older brother goes to Russia apparently for training.
Clearly, they didn't have credible fear but this isn't new. The 9/11 Commission to which I provided testimony identified immigration fraud as abetting tactic and, in fact, Chuck Schumer had been one of the architects of the agricultural amnesty program of the '86 amnesty, and it turn out that Mahmoud Abdul Karim, one of the bombers of the '93 Trade Center attack, got agricultural amnesty even though he didn't work on a farm.
So we know that agriculture amnesty, political asylum, fraud --
ROMANS: All legal ways to access the American system which are fraudulently used by people you're saying.
CUTLER: Absolutely, and we have over 5 million people who violated the terms of their admission into the United States. So, clearly the way we admit people legally is flawed as well.
ROMANS: And so, Ana, let me bring in to you, because rising Republican stars like Paul Ryan for example argue that Boston is exactly the proof that we need to reform that system that Michael Cutler is talking about.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. PAUL RYAN (R), WISCONSIN: We need a modern immigration system that helps us not only protect our border but protects national security and all of its aspects. So, if anything, I would say this is an argument for modernizing our immigration laws.
(END VIDEO CLIP) ROMANS: So, Ana, in your view, how does Boston change the dynamic in the immigration debate?
ANA NAVARRO, CNN CONTRIBUTOR: Look, Christine, if there are issues that are immigration issues and that are relevant that can be looked at and that can be addressed within this bill, we should do so.
What we should not do is use it as a justification to delay what is a necessary legislative action. I think Paul Ryan is absolutely right. We have an antiquated system. We have no way of tracking entry and exits.
We just have -- you know, most of the problems we have are people who overstay their visas here and we don't know where they are or who they are. We have a problem with people that are here, millions of people living in the shadows that are not part of the official society. We don't know who they are.
And I also want to talk to you personally about this. I also came to this country as a political refugee from a country called Nicaragua which was in the midst of communism and civil war back in the '80s. Most political refugees who come to this country love this country, are so grateful for the opportunity that we've been given to live in freedom and for the shelter we've been given in this country, we embrace the values.
So I wanted to make very sure that people understand that most immigrants in the United States, particularly political asylees are people who embrace the values, who love America, and we are ready to defend it with our lives if necessary.
CUTLER: I agree with you and, look, my mom came here ahead of the Holocaust, I was named for my grandmother who died in the Holocaust. I worked as (INAUDIBLE) president back in college to open up political asylum opportunities for true refugees.
The problem is that people coming out of the shadows will be able to use false names, they're not even doing face-to-face interviews now to take care of this DACA program, the deferred action program. So how does that provide us with additional security when we wind up giving identity documents to people who may well lie about who they are?
The system needs to have integrity before we call upon the beleaguered system to suddenly deal with what you say are 11 million -- I think if we look at '86 amnesty, it could 30 or more million.
ROMANS: I want to bring in the Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano. She says that the Senate immigration bill would make us safer. For example, by better tracking Tamerlan Tsarnaev. I want you to listen to what she said.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JANET NAPOLITANO, HOMELAND SECURITY SECRETARY: The bill does strengthen the electronic use of or electronically readable passports for travel and so forth, so that we don't have any manual entries. So, any time we can get rid of human error or the possibility for human error, that's a good thing.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: So let me ask you, Ana, do you think that the Homeland Security Department, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Congress, is going to be able to put together something that's comprehensive that's going to appeal to everyone, the people who are worried about terrorists, the people who are worried about high-tech workers having enough high-tech workers.
There are so many stakeholders in good immigration reform.
NAVARRO: Christine, I think there's going to be parts of this immigration bill of a comprehensive bill that appeal to everybody and there's going to be parts of it that people don't like. There's going to be something for everybody to like and something for everybody to dislike. I think that's pretty much how a comprehensive bill gets through Congress.
It's called a compromise. It's not something we've seen much in the last few years in this Congress, miraculously it's happening, it's happening on both sides of the aisle and it's happening on both sides of the chambers of Congress.
So, it's a pretty infrequent sight we are seeing and there's going to be something everybody likes.
ROMANS: But the last time we saw at '86, the last massive immigration reform President Ronald Reagan said, we had just ended illegal immigration and it didn't, you know? I mean, that's what people get so worried about. Michael?
CUTLER: There's nothing in there about enforcement. You know, I just testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 20th. There was no discussion about how do we make certain we actually enforce the laws? There's only a couple thousand immigration agents for the whole country. New York has 35,000 police officers.
If you don't enforce the laws and you don't disincentivize coming here illegally, violating our laws and providing, by the way, employment --
ROMANS: But let's bring it back to Boston, though, because this is what we're talking. We're bringing it back to Boston. Boston those guys from what it looks like weren't violating any immigration laws.
So, Ana, just close it up for me here. Does Boston change the immigration debate, or is it a bump?
NAVARRO: I think it's a bump. I think people who are against this are going to use it, they're going to use anything they can to try to derail this bill. But I think in the end there is enough consensus in Congress to get this through and make a constructive bill. And if there's issues that need to be addressed, they will.
ROMANS: Michael Cutler, thank you so much.
And, Ana Navarro, so nice to see you again. Have a great weekend to both of you. Thanks for your perspective both of you.
ROMANS: OK. Just one day after bombs went off in Boston, your elected officials already playing politics.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
REP. XAVIER BECERRA (D), CALIFORNIA: You can't try to shelter from cuts, first responders, if you're in the city of Boston, because the federal government has just said to you we have to close our eyes, make cuts across the board to every program and guess what? We have to send you less money to help your first responders.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Are the forced budget cuts making us less safe? That's next.
ROMANS: How much are American taxpayers willing to pay for security?
Grover Norquist, anti-tax crusader, a frequent guest on this program, famously said he wanted to shrink the government down to the point where he could drown it in a bathtub. Two days before the bombings in Boston, he spoke at a Tea Party rally on Boston Common.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
GROVER NORQUIST, PRESIDENT, AMERICANS FOR TAX REFORM: On the central issue that moves our vote, we want the government to leave us alone.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Obviously, Norquist and anyone else at the rally couldn't foresee the events of Monday. But it shows what a different time we seem to be living in just two weeks ago as the debate over smaller government raged on.
And in the aftermath of the bombings, government didn't leave Boston alone. Thousands of law enforcement officers from every level of government descended on that city, the unprecedented manhunt shut down much of the metro area, residents were told to stay home, stay inside but the show of force worked. Four days after the bombings, one suspect was dead, another was in custody.
CNN contributor, Republican strategist Ana Navarro is back with us. Ben Barber is a senior research scholar at the City University of New York.
Ana, polls show an overwhelming approval of the massive response to the Boston bombings. Polls also show Americans tend to favor a smaller federal government, can you have both?
NAVARRO: I think you can. I think there are a lot of things you can cut in the federal government without touching national security. I think that when it comes to keeping our homeland safe, keeping our families, our countries safe, Americans put that in a different category and have an exception for that.
But we also understand that there's gigantic bureaucracies all over Washington, all over government that can be cut. And, you know, Christine, one of the things that happened with the economic distress we've been going through is Americans is that most of us have had to cut, whether it's in our homes or our businesses. So I don't - I think that we don't feel all that sympathy for government when it's told it's got to cut 2 or 3 percent.
ROMANS: And you expect your government to help you in your hour of need; you do. You expect that to be one of the things that stays on the table.
NAVARRO: That's one of the primary functions of government.
Ben, did the response of the Boston bombings remind the small government crowd that, yes, government can work for you or did it not move the needle for those folks?
BENJAMIN BARBER, SR. RESEARCH SCHOLAR, CUNY GRADUATE CENTER: Of course, it reminded them exactly of that and there's so much inconsistency in how we talk about the issues.
Ana wants to make an exception for national security. A lot of Republicans want to make an exception for the Pentagon. A lot of Democrats want to make an exception for entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicaid.
The problem is, we all want big government where it serves us, and we all want small government where other people are involved.
And that hypocrisy goes right across the political system and makes the life of both citizens and politicians absolutely impossible.
ROMANS: Let's talk about some of those programs. Earlier this week Congresswoman Diane Black, a Republican from Tennessee, she tweeted this, "Under President Obama, food stamp enrollment has increased at 10 times the rate of job creation."
Now, we know the spending on entitlements is expanding at the expense of discretionary spending, things like education and infrastructure. Ben, Americans don't trust the government to make the investments. So, what's the alternative? Is there an alternative? What's the alternative?
BARBER: Well, the alternative is we have to figure out how to afford the government we want and want the government we can afford, and that means some consistency. A lot of the issue here is not with the national debt, but our unwillingness on the Republican side to pay for it with revenue increases, tax increases and on the Democratic side the unwillingness to make some cuts in favor to entitlement programs.
We need to do both. President Obama in recent months has been offering a compromise saying yes, we will cut some of our favorite programs. You've got to raise some of the revenues on folks you don't want to raise it on.
Republicans have simply been saying no and then complaining about the debt problem. But the debt problem is a matter of more expenditures than revenues and you fix that not just by lowering expenditures but by raising revenues so you have an implacable quadrant of the U.S. Congress saying no revenue raises, no tax raises on anybody ever. That really creates paralysis in government.
ROMANS: You know, when you talk about government spending, Ana, one thing that was about the Boston bombings in particular and the two suspects that was distasteful to many was that the families of these two suspects had actually had government benefits, they were, quote- unquote, "takers" if you're on the campaign trail. You'll be talking about makers and takers.
You know, they had benefited from the safety net of the American government, even as the American government was trying to hunt them down. That inconsistency is something among conservatives really noted, that we are giving benefits to -- benefits that we can't afford all over the place.
NAVARRO: I think it's appalling to any American, Democrat, Republican, or libertarian, humanitarian, or vegetarian, that somebody that is on the dole in the United States, that's receiving the charity of the United States turns around and bites the hand that's basically feeding them. That a guy who hasn't work, his wife is working 70, 80 hours a week, and is getting government assistance, is doing terrorism against the United States and its citizens. Of course, it's appalling, it's shocking and it's disgusting.
And also, you know, there is abuse of the system. It's something we have to adjust. I don't think it's hypocritical or inconsistent to talk about some of these exceptions for national security.
ROMANS: All right. Ana Navarro, let's leave it there. So much to talk about, we'll talk with both you again very soon, a great conversation.
Benjamin Barber, nice to see both you. Have a great rest of the weekend.
NAVARRO: Thank you.
ROMANS: Security cameras helped identify the Boston bombing suspects. They are becoming increasingly effective tool for police. They aren't cheap, though. A look at the cost of surveillance, next.
ROMANS: How much does it cost to keep Americans safe? Video surveillance is a $10 billion industry in the United States. After the events in Boston, experts expect demand to keep growing.
But can we afford it? Who pays?
Joining me now is CNN business correspondent Zain Asher. Good morning, Zain.
ZAIN ASHER, CNN BUSINESS CORRESPONDENT: Hey, Christine.
A typical surveillance camera like the ones used to identify the suspects in the Boston marathon bombings might cost a few thousand dollars. Experts say in a city like New York, you might need 10 or 20 cameras for just good visuals on just one block. Of course, you add that up, and keeping New Yorkers safe is a very expensive business.
ASHER (voice-over): Hard to believe these eyes-in-the-sky play such a vital role in protecting us from harm.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We are releasing photos of these two suspects.
DON ERICKSON, CEO, SECURITY INDUSTRY ASSOCIATION: The industry felt that our work was worthwhile after those photographs were released, identifying the suspects.
ASHER: A victory, yes, but one that comes with a price tag.
ROBERT HOROWITZ, PRESIDENT, ELECTRONIC SECURITY AND COMMUNICATIONS: A camera such as this with a decent megapixel count today is probably about a $3,000 investment.
ASHER: So this particular camera you're watching me through costs about $1,500. It's installed about 150 feet away from where I'm standing. But if you zoom in, you really can't see that much detail.
This camera on the other hand same distance, but a lot clearer. It is also double the cost. It costs about $3,000 to be installed on just one street corner.
Video surveillance in the U.S. is a $10 billion business. That number soared in the years after 9/11 which saw 30 million new cameras added to the streets.
ERICKSON: The tragedies have an impact on our industry. We are very concerned. We don't want to be perceived as opportunistic.
ASHER: From real ones to dummies to the inconspicuous to those monitored by humans, millions of cameras watch over the U.S. as part of the roughly $60 billion spent annually on domestic security.
But can we afford it?
ERICKSON: This is definitely a time of fiscal austerity.
ASHER: And how much should cost be a factor in public safety?
In London the suspects behind the subway bombings in 2005 were identified by name in just a few days. That's because the city has roughly one camera for every 14 people, a total of half a million.
In New York City, there are only 3,000 to 6,000.
The Urban Institute, a nonpartisan think tank, says that, for every dollar invested in surveillance cameras in Chicago, it saves the city about $4 in other possible costs.
NANCY LA VIGNE, URBAN INSTITUTE: Those are costs associated with crimes that didn't happen, costs to the court, costs to incarcerate people.
ASHER: But the costs of installing surveillance cameras doesn't fall on government alone.
The Boston bombing suspects were caught using footage from private stores like Lord & Taylor and images from ordinary citizens -- evidence we all share responsibility to keep our streets safe.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ASHER: And I also want to mention, Christine, that Boston has less than 1,000 cameras, which is roughly round one camera for every 600 people, of course, very different from places like London. Also, this is a time of budget cuts. The Department of Homeland Security has a nationwide grant of $1.5 billion to prevent terrorism, that includes things like video surveillance, among many other things as well. But that amount has actually decreased by more than half from a year ago -- Christine.
ROMANS: And we do know that privacy groups and civil libertarians have also encouraged some towns like, hey, you don't have to watch people all the time.
ASHER: Yes, privacy is definitely a huge concern.
ROMANS: Yes, there's that the other side of the story, too. All right. Zain, thanks so much, Zain Asher.
See this drop? That was all because of one little tweet. I'll explain what we're up against and why your money is in danger, coming up.
ROMANS: The Boston bombings, letters containing ricin, a foiled plot to attack a train bound for New York. America is on edge.
I am Christine Romans. This is YOUR MONEY. Online we face a different kind of terror, the terror of seeing your bank account fall to zero, the terror of watching your savings swept away. We haven't faced this yet, but we got a little taste this week. A hacker got into the Associated Press's twitter account and tweeted "Breaking, two explosions at the White House. Barack Obama injured." That tweet, a fake tweet, was up for just a few minutes before the account was suspended.
But the market responded in an instant. Look at the drop. The Dow fell about 145 points or one percent. Even though the market bounced right back, it was a scary drop for investors.
Experts say over the past few months we have seen the number of cyber- attacks skyrocket, and the biggest threat, the biggest target, our banks. According to a new Verizon report, about 37 percent of information breaches were aimed at financial organizations.
I want to bring in Alan Paller, a director of research at the SANS Institute of Cyber Security training organization. Alan, we just saw two Monday shut down Boston for days. That's the visible face of terrorism. The invisible, the countless hits from hackers all over the world every day, how real is this threat of cyber-terrorism?
ALAN PALLER, DIRECTOR OF RESEARCH, SANS INSTITUTE: It is very real. In Saudi Arabia, cyber-terrorists took out 30,000 computers, just destroyed them. So it is physical damage being done. But the real worry right now is financial loss, because our money used to be in vaults. Now it is in a computer. When that computer goes away, when you get online and there is zero in your checking account, it is the same as losing the money. It is that last -- sorry, go ahead.
ROMANS: If hackers are taking aim at our banks and we know they are, what kind of damage could this cause? Can we overcome it? And how quickly?
PALLER: You saw what happens in a very short time. It comes right back. No problem at all. If it lasts, if people try to get on and cannot find their money, and then they call the bank and the bank says, well, we have technical troubles, we'll be back with you. If it lasts awhile, people's attitude will change. And if it lasts weeks or months, there is actually a real loss of money and it could be loss of jobs. It could have huge economic effects. And that's the real worry is that it is not a short-term thing, it is a long-term thing.
ROMANS: So these hackers getting access come from everywhere. We know that 30 percent come from servers in China, 28 percent from Romania, 18 percent from inside the U.S. and Iran. Iran has made headlines for targeting our banks recently. How can we police attack that is come from all over the world?
PALLER: There are so many sources of them that you actually can't say I am going to focus on China or I am going to focus on Iran and try to do something about it, because even if you scare the government, they work through intermediaries and they claim they aren't controlling them. So you have to build better defenses. And the federal government has been impotent in establishing defenses and showing the way. So if we're going to fix this problem it is not going to be by getting mad at China or Iran. It will be by making our system safer.
ROMANS: Making the system safer, is the government, the U.S. government prepared? Is corporate America prepared to protect all of this?
PALLER: Surprisingly, we actually know what to do, and the Australian government has shown the way. But the U.S. has had a massive failure in leadership in this area. All they have to do is lead by example. If they show how to do it the way the Australians are doing, business will follow them. But as long as they don't protect the federal computers well it is hard to say thanks for telling us what to do when you don't know what to do yourself.
ROMANS: How can we as individual protect our bank accounts and our investments, and how can we protect against -- this hacking is happening every day.
PALLER: There is one easy solution, Christine. It actually works. There are very few things that you can say this will really work. This one does. Whenever do you online banking or online stock trading, always do it on a machine that you do nothing else on. Computers cost a couple hundred dollars now. You can have a computer for your banking. Don't do e-mail on it. Don't ever do the web on it. Don't do anything on it. Don't put Word or Excel or any other software. Just use it for banking, and it is really the safest thing you can do, especially if you're a small business, because the banks don't pay you back if you lose money and you're a small business.
ROMANS: That is really, really good advice. Alan Pauler is director of research at the SANS Institute. Thank you very much. Have a nice weekend.
PALLER: You're welcome.
ROMANS: Up next, the economy revved up last quarter. But the acceleration may not last. Find out why next.
And later, the new face of charity, online crowd funding is taking off in the wake of the Boston bombings. But are you one click away from a scam?
ROMANS: Gross domestic product is the broadest measure of our economic output. By that measure it sure looks like America's economy is picking up steam again. On Friday the Commerce Department said GDP grew by an annual rate of 2.5 percent in the first three months of the year. For some perspective, the economy looks for growth at least three percent higher to signal a real recovery.
Nevertheless, that 2.5 percent number looks especially good when compared to a measly growth the America witnessed in the previous quarter, a very sluggish 0.4 in the final three months of 2012. So it's time to break out the champagne? Maybe not. We're already seeing slower retail sales drop, growth in manufacturing output, which could all point to slower economic growth in the second quarter.
And when you factor in the effects that higher payroll taxes could have on consumer spending and the forced government spending cuts, the sequester, what that could do to the expansion, you may want to hold the champagne for another occasion.
Stephen Moore is senior economic writer and editorial board member of the "Wall Street Journal" and Professor Robert Reich is a former secretary of labor under President Clinton and author of "Beyond Outraged," now available on paperback. So Bob, should we be happy with 2.5 percent growth? Does that indicate things are getting better for most Americans?
ROBERT REICH, AUTHOR, "BEYOND OUTRAGED": Let's take anything we can get, Christine. The average growth over the last year has been about two percent. We're definitely going in the right direction. But I agree with you, it is too early to break out the champagne. There are a lot of storm clouds on the horizon, that sequester, that very low proportion of working age Americans actually in the workforce, about as low as we have had since 1979.
ROMANS: Is that because of retiring? Are they giving up hope or retiring?
REICH: Well, some of them are undoubtedly giving up hope. They are not moving back into work. Many are men who are over 55 years old and can't get work and have been out of work for a record length of time. It is doubtful they're ever going to get back in the workforce.
ROMANS: Steven, the sequester took effect March 1st. The sky has not fallen yet. Everything is still here. Can the U.S. afford to pull back spending when this recovery is still so delicate?
STEPHEN MOORE, "WALL STREET JOURNAL": Well, that's a good question. If you look at this new GDP report, it is pretty clear that if you take out government, actually private sector growth was above three percent which is decent.
Look, I actually think that the sequester has been pretty bullish for the markets. I think that the investors and businesses like to see the governments getting at least semi-serious about reining in spending and reigning in the deficit. So I don't buy the argument this is bad for the economy. I am a flyer all the time, by the way, Christine, so I don't like the delays at airports, but I think they can fix that problem and we can move forward.
Look, I just worry that we're on this kind of path right now of as you said two to 2.5 percent growth, and that's too slow. I compared this recovery that we have had now, which is almost four years old, to the last ten recoveries and we're only growing at about half the pace we should be. Christine, that's a big problem, why we're not creating the jobs and the incomes that we all want to see.
ROMANS: Here is the thing. We all degree this is a horrible recovery.
MOORE: Right. That's rare by the way. We almost never agree.
ROMANS: I have a feeling you do not agree on how to fix it or how come. So Robert Reich, I don't think that you think this is a good time to be pulling back on public sector spending, is it?
REICH: No, because when you have the private sector still very, very reluctant to spend, and not only businesses are reluctant to invest but consumers, one thing we saw out of this report from the Commerce Department today is the consumers, although they're spending up, their savings went way down. And if you combine that with a bad jobs report for march and also a lot of worries about their taxes, their Social Security taxes going up and the sequester, I am concerned that for the government to pull back right now is exactly the wrong time.
MOORE: You know what is interesting about this Robert Reich, you I and have debated this, you've always said that taxes don't really matter. One of the interesting things about this report is we saw a big increase in reported income in the fourth quarter of 2012 and then this quarter we actually saw a very big decline in income, both reported income, dividend income. And Robert Reich, I think that's because we raised these tax rates and, Christine, I think that's the bigger problem with the economy than the sequester, spending cuts.
REICH: Here again, with great trepidation I agree with Steven Moore. I think it was wrong to raise the Social Security taxes, and also it doesn't make sense. The Social Security tax holiday was very important. It doesn't amount to a huge amount of money per family, but, listen, it is still $1,000. And for most families $1,000 makes a big deal of difference in terms of discretionary spending.
So it is said that economic forecasters exist in order to make astrologers look good. Let me just warn, I am not bullish on the next quarter or the quarter following. I think that the storm clouds are too large right now.
ROMANS: Let me bring in around the rest of the world, too. It is not just the U.S. the IMF revised its forecast for the year, the world's two largest economies, U.S. and China, expecting to see slower growth than before. Europe in recession largely because, many say, across the board austerity. Does the rest of the world slowdown mean a stall in the U.S. is inevitable and I know how you feel about this, you have just told us you think you're not bullish the next couple of quarters so I will ask you, are you concerned by what you see? There's 27 percent unemployment in Spain, we're celebrating 7.6 percent unemployment here. How much drag is that on us?
MOORE: Christine, the way I look at t we're the life raft for the economy right now. We're one of the few economies actually growing, albeit not as rapidly as we want. When Europe slows down, when China slows down, there is no question about it. That has a negative impact on American economic growth. And the question is as Europe is virtually in recession rights now, it make very difficult for the U.S. economy to grow. That's why I am with Robert Reich, and this is very rare by the way, that I think the next couple quarters could be tough sledding.
ROMANS: I think the sky may have fallen. I will revise my earlier statement and say the sky is falling because with great trepidation one agrees with the other and the other agrees with the other. Love it. I love consensus. Gentlemen, thank you so much. Nice to see you. Have a great weekend, guys.
Good news. You can go back to the usual misery of flying.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: We'll all pay the price. What can you do? You grin and bear it.
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: They need it fix it because I just want to home.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Your elected leaders have stepped in to keep air traffic controllers on the job. Now can they solve the rest of the forced budget cuts? That's next on YOUR MONEY.
ROMANS: Further proof that all it takes to get Washington to act is a deadline that has passed and disgruntled constituents. Across the country this week travelers were greeted with this, the forced budget cuts that Washington also the sequester, the Transportation Department had been warning for months about the effects of cutting $600 million from the FAA budget, and last Sunday the furloughs kicked in for 47,000 FAA workers including 15,000 air traffic controllers. That meant every day 10 percent of the FAA's workforce had to take an unpaid day off. And 5,800 flights delayed just the first three days of furloughs. That's compared to 2,500 delays over the same period last year.
Democrats had argued for a complete fix to the forced budget cuts, but less than a week into the furloughs the elected leaders have intervened to give the Department of Transportation flexibility in determining how cuts are made.
(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)
JAY CARNEY, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: The problem is that this is just a Band-Aid solution. The funding associated with the furloughs at the FAA is I think $253 million. That's one half of one percent, one half of one percent of the sequester.
(END VIDEO CLIP)
ROMANS: Hopefully any delays you experience now can just be blamed on the usual misery of flying.
Nancy Cook is an economic and fiscal policy correspondent for the "National Journal," Josh Marks is the executive director of the American Aviation Institute. Nice to see both of you here. Nancy, I want to start with you. One month into the forced budget cuts polls show around half of Americans still don't know whether the cuts were good or bad for the country. Was this week's flying frustration enough to change that?
NANCY COOK, ECONOMIC AND FISCAL POLICY CORRESPONDENT, "NATIONAL JOURNAL": Well, I think that we're just starting to see the cuts. So I certainly think that the polling hasn't necessarily kept pace with the way that we have seen the cuts. I certainly think that tons of passengers and people that were going through airports were really frustrated by the sequester cuts and we're starting to see other things like furloughs of employees at the White House budget office, the IRS. And so the more and more consumers see this sequester affect their daily lives the more upset they will be. The question is whether or not the FAA cuts and the new flexibility to deal with it, whether or not that basically lessens the impact of the sequester so people still don't see how it affects them.
ROMANS: Let me bring you in. Republicans say the Obama administration has gone out of its way to make the forced budget cuts feel harsh. The White House blamed Congress for passing the sequester. Josh, you say it started long before the latest round of cuts.
JOSHUA MARKS, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN AVIATION INSTITUTE: That's right. The FAA has been struggling for decades now with an air traffic control system that's based on antiquated technology. It is very inefficient to run the radar based system and take a lot of controllers to do so. So when you have a situation like we did this week where you have a 10 percent cut in man power, the effects are immediately felt in the system. And the predictions that there was going to be chaos in the air system didn't take long to manifest themselves. And throw in a little bit of bad weather early in the week in New York and the effects were very, very clear to everybody.
ROMANS: Josh, I know it was a pain. It was a real pain in the neck. Was the flying public ever at risk?
MARKS: From a safety perspective, no, and of course the FAA managed air space capacity in order to maintain the same level of safety. So it was never a question of risk to the traveling public. It is just that given the safety standards that have to be maintained, when you take controllers out of the picture and you have to make do on a lower staffing level, there is going to be fewer flights that can be handled, and that's what we saw with the delays.
ROMANS: Nancy, these delays are basically the most visible, the most widespread of the forced budget cuts up to now, and Washington approving a temporary solution for the furloughs. But does that make it less likely we'll see a complete fix for the sequester, or do we have a Congress that's going to lurch from crisis to crisis and when people scream and yell, then suddenly they will play the hero?
COOK: I think it does make it less likely we'll see an ultimate full fix of the sequester, because what this has done is really encourages special interests and different groups to say, hey, if you lobby enough and you cause enough stink, you can certainly get your portion of the cuts undone. And so I think what we'll see is a huge effort by lobbying and special interest groups to go to Congress and go to the White House and try to get their cuts undone.
I think we may not see that, though, for programs that hit low income people, things like housing assistance, things like the Head Start, people that don't necessarily have the same advocates or lobbying dollars as bigger industries. I think those people will still feel the cuts.
ROMANS: Nancy Cook and Josh, so nice to see both of you. Thanks this morning.
ROMANS: All right, a tremendous show of support for victims of the Boston Marathon bombing through crowd funding online. More than $25 million from all over the world was raised in one week. What you need to know about those sites next.
ROMANS: The terror attack on the Boston Marathon showed us the worst in humanity, but we've also seen some of the best in people. Police, first responders, everyday bystanders rushed to help at the scene. Emergency doctors and specialists worked around the clock. And it hasn't stopped there. All over the world people are digging deep into their pockets to point, click, and give.
ROMANS: Bucks for Bauman, help the White family recover. Fix Dave's boat. Charitable fundraising has come a long way since the celebrity telethon following the tragedies of 9/11, Katrina, and Haiti. In the seven days more than $25 million was raised to benefit victims and their families through crowd funding. Sites like Go Fund Me, Give Forward, and Fundly allow anyone to go on live and raise money. Crowd funding works quickly and let's donors experience who their donations go to. Fund for Adrian is raising money to support Adrian Haslet- Davis, a dancer who lost her leg in the bombing.
ADRIAN HASLET-DAVIS, BOSTON BOMBING SURVIVOR: When someone tries to stop from you doing something or something happened in your life where it is not exactly what you expected, you have to conquer that, and you have to find the better side of it.
ROMANS: While these sites have the best of intentions, donors need to be careful. GiveForward.com told us for every legitimate page on the site, two had to be shut down because of fraud. And because they're so new, none of these sites has been evaluated by watch dogs.
KEN BERGER, PRESIDENT AND CEO, CHARITY NAVIGATOR: They have no track record. This he have no financial reports that is we can look at. There is no real data to show whether or not they're going to be legitimate and effective.
ROMANS: And there are fees. They can be as high as eight percent of your donation depending on the site. That's where Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick and the Boston mayor established the One Fund.
GOV. DEVAL PATRICK, (D) MASSACHUSETTS: This fund will be managed by an experienced, effective leader who is with us today, Ken Feinberg, many of you know, the mayor and I have known for a long time. All of the money will go to victims, none to administrative costs.
BERGER: We think that that would be a safer approach. The problem is it may take longer for the money to get there. But at least you have a more thorough vetting to make sure when it does get there, it gets to the right people.
ROMANS: Technology may not end of the celebrity telethon. Good thing Jerry Lewis is retired.
ROMANS: One more thing to consider with crowd funding sites -- because you're giving money to an individual and not a recognized charity, your donation won't qualify for a tax deduction.
Thanks for joining the conversation this week on YOUR MONEY. We're here every Saturday 9:30 a.m.; 2:00 p.m. Eastern and every Sunday at 3:00 p.m. You can find me on Facebook at Christine Romans, CNN, and on Twitter my handle is @ChristineRomans. Have a great weekend.