Economic Paradox

The paradox of the current U.S. Economy – as noted by countless others – is that it is driven by consumption, which is a linear system, which like all linear systems, can't be sustained for an indefinite period of time. Consume, discard, repeat can only go on so long, and I think we may be seeing the end of the line for that 60-year-old method. The more that people consume, the less they save, and the more vulnerable they become when things like unemployment happen. So right now, many Americans across a fairly wide economic range are deciding it's time to save, and I'm not so sure that the economy is going to rebound simply by giving Americans more money, and especially more credit. We as a society are already up to our ears in student loans, credit cards, and mortgages. The average person has more than $9,000 in credit card debt alone. The LAST thing we need is to have to make more payments to banks. However, every news and government report seems to be championing that very solution for the current problems in the banking industry. The primary purpose of the $700 billion in bailout funds given to Wall Street was to encourage banks to reopen lines of credit for Americans who were then supposed to start buying homes and cars again.

However, I think a lot of Americans are recognizing that the homes, cars, iPods, cell phones, televisions and other major purchases we've been making just aren't worth their cost. Over the past 25 years, the cost of big ticket items has more than doubled. My parents paid a little over $4,000 for Chevette in 1984. You can't buy a car that's 10 years old for $4,000 today, and yet many Americans are working for similar wages that they made in the mid-late 80s, said parents included. Likewise, the cost of a college education has gone up 50 percent in the last decade alone, but entry-level wages are down. So we have less money to spend, but have had more credit available to us at younger and younger ages, and while we were so busy spending and keeping the economy riding high, we didn't notice that bank fees and interest rates more than quadrupled since 1995, trapping us in debt by age 25 that we have no hope of ever getting out of. The end result is that we've finally stopped consuming, which made companies stop producing, so jobs have been lost, so loans have been defaulted on, so banks go belly up, and the cycle continues.

While I don't disagree with the recently-passed stimulus package (because I think the general population needs at least as much help as the corporations), I'm not convinced it's going to be a cure-all. Perhaps it may sound radical right now, but I think the era of excess may be permanently slowing down. Jobs based on production and consumption may not bounce back because, when forced by the recession to make do with less, people are may very well realize how much they can do without. The biggest mistake our government is making right now is trying to get us back to where we were: with an economy that was trapping people in endless cycles of debt. We're realizing that it's hypocritical and unconscionable that we live in a society in which government and corporations team up to tell us that we are solely responsible for knowing our own financial limits, then tell us that the reason people are losing jobs is because we aren't spending enough money. Every personal economic indicator – from record low savings accounts to sky-rocketing personal debt – tells us the last thing we need is to take on more $200,000 mortgages, $18,000 car loans, and even $40,000 student loans. Likewise, the weekly jaunts to Wal-Mart to drop $100, the $150 monthly cell phone plans, the $100 cable/satellite TV bills, and the $200 monthly restaurant tabs are slowly starting to go by the wayside.

People are cutting back, and if the recession last long enough, we may even come to realize how much happier we are spending less money. While I have no idea what that will mean for the structure of our economy, I know that we cannot continue on the path we're on. Our economy hasn't always been based on consumption, so maybe it's time we begin exploring ways to stay afloat that don't put the burden of making more Wall Street millionaires on the backs of those who can least afford it.

Working Mom-in-chief

Michelle Obama is making news -- and a few waves -- as she breaks eight years of silence from the office of the first lady by speaking out in support of her husband's policy. According to an article in the New York Times, "'Mom in Chief' Touches on Policy; Tongues Wag" , Michelle has used recent pubic appearances to tout President Obama's economic stimulus plan -- actions regarded by some as completely in character and by others as near scandalous.

It seems there is still some expectation -- renewed over the past eight years by Laura Bush's uber-traditional approach to her role -- that the wife of the president be little more than Official Hostess and Loyal-But-Silent Companion to the President. As one woman in the article put it: "She (Michelle) went to some lengths to say she was going to be first mom-in-chief. I don’t think we ever really imagined her edging toward public policy like this."

Why not? How does being mom-in-chief exclude her from publicly discussing the issues that the rest of the country can't stop talking about, issues that are of vital importance to moms everywhere? She never said she was going to be a stay-at-home-mom-in-chief. And I think mothers across the county are breathing a collective sigh of relief that we may have someone in the White House who is in a position to work to make it a little bit easier for us to have opinions and responsibilities that extend beyond the home. Perhaps we have someone in Washington who not only understands the needs of working mothers, but can help us out with real policies that don't economically and professionally penalize us for having children. That's how I interpreted her "mom-in-chief" comment.

However, it seems there are people who took that statement to mean we would be treated to an endless parade of warm and fuzzy featurettes of her being a mother, only a mother, and nothing but a mother. While that is certainly an important task in her life, it's not the only one, and it's frightening that so many people seem unable to accept that a woman can debate economic theory and brands of peanut butter with equal ease. Heck, we can do it at the same time!

In discussing Mrs. Obama's foray into public policy, the article said, "It is a notably different approach than the one embraced by the former first lady, Laura Bush, who like most others steered clear of discussing legislation." First of all, let me say "most other" first ladies didn't so much "steer clear" of talking about legislation as they were prohibited from it. In fact, the first 28 first ladies weren't even allowed to vote, so exactly what degree of respect were they likely to have been given on so-called "men's" issues? Later first ladies had a slew of interests that ranged from substance abuse to drugs to neighborhood beautification, and a few in the 60s and 70s were even known to publicly support the ERA.

Of course, all first ladies had the ear of their very public husbands in private, which was considered a far more acceptable place than a podium to express their intelligent and independent opinions, a tradition that should have gone the way of the corset by now. Which leads me to the comparison between Laura Bush and Michelle Obama: I can't help but wonder if Laura was so silent, and hence so "traditional" because she found it difficult to support her husband's policy. It's also worth noting that the Republican Party still likes to harken back to days of old when their definition of family values kept women in their place. Remember the embarrassingly archaic "cookie bake-off" between Hillary Clinton and Barbara Bush in 1992, the supposed "Year of the Woman"? What better fodder for the "Mommy Wars" than a stunt designed to presumably draw a stark comparison between a traditional, caring grandmotherly type of first lady and the brash, independent, feminist that the Democrats were backing? It seems that no matter the year, no matter the woman, there is pressure to keep the most public woman in the country in the kitchen. And even strong-willed Hillary felt the need to bend to it by taking part in that very First Ladylike publicity stunt.

The bottom line is Michelle will be no more like Laura than Laura was like Hillary, than Hillary was like Barbara, than Barbara was like Nancy, and so on down the road. She is her own woman with her own plans for what she can do with her title. That fact that she sees her role as first lady from many angles with multiple agendas reflects how many women today feel about their dueling roles as women, mothers, professionals, students, and spouses. But I can't deny it's as nice to have a first lady willing to publicly address the problems facing the country as it is having a president able to deal with them.

President Obama -- Finally!

I barely know where to begin. There are so many angles and so many sidebars to the story of President Obama's inauguration that I may need a month to sort through them all. But first, let me just say how great it is to write those two words: President Obama. I still breathe a sigh of relief every time I hear it, say it, or write it.

There's no doubt that for Democrats, it's been a long eights years, and as Bush's approval rating and Obama's margin of victory indicate, Democrats weren't the only ones feeling the pain of his presidency. I, and I suspect most other people who prefer blue -- or at least purple -- to red, are quick to admit that the virtual collapse of nearly every major American economic, corporate, and financial entity was far, far too high a price to pay for the selfish right to say "We told you so." Looking back, yes, I wish Bush's years as president had been more successful, and I wish the Republican policies that have been implemented since 2001 had worked as well as Republicans vainly thought they would. Maybe then, my savings account would have a little more padding. Maybe then, my home's value would be a bit higher. Maybe then, my dad would have gotten the unemployment he was entitled to -- or not lost his job and pension in the first place. Maybe then, our troops would be home with their families, Iraq wouldn't still be a war zone, and Osama bin Laden would have been caught several years ago. Maybe then workers would not have lost their jobs or been laid off at Circuit City, Value City, KB Toys, Linens N' Things, Krispy Kreme, GM, Kmart, D&G Pools, Mountaineer Casino, Turning Technologies, Gortants Chocolates, Wheatland Tube, 84 Lumber, Vinyl Source, and many other companies around the region, state, and country.

And yet there are those who already hate Barack Obama and everything he stands for. They hate that he is a Democrat -- even while they may have lost life savings under Republican policies. They hate that he wants to provide health care and education -- even while they can't pay doctor bills and student loans. They hate that he is popular, educated, articulate, intelligent, charismatic, determined, and scrupulous -- even as they see the state the last president left this country in. And yes, there are those who hate him just because he is black and he is another example that the white race is quickly losing its status as the ruling class in America, even though that undeserving privilege was obtained by white people though slavery, genocide, discrimination, prejudice, and unconscionable dominance.

For the first time since I was in college, I feel like the United States once again stands for something other than selfish pursuits on the part of the country and its individual citizens at the cost of all else. Patriotism, it seems, had been reserved only for those who agreed with the President. Now, more people than ever can reclaim a sense of national pride that needn't be linked to war, religion, and money. Patriotism is about freedom, fairness, growth, pursuit, work, debate, knowledge, idealism, charity, and compassion. Those are ideas I can appreciate and be proud of.

There are so many parts of Obama's inaugural speech that I thought were very quote-worthy and would love to analyze word by word. His tone was not patronizing or placating, and he was very direct and honest in his assessment of our country's condition. Pundits and talking heads were all a bit surprised at his candor, especially when he said things like:

"That we are in the midst of crisis is now well understood. Our nation is at war, against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred. Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age."

or

"Less measurable but no less profound is a sapping of confidence across our land – a nagging fear that America’s decline is inevitable, and that the next generation must lower its sights."

But one part stood out to me as representing ideals that would have been at home on the pages of a Horatio Alger book. Obama spoke of the grit and determination of the American spirit, which is so often used to defend and characterize a course of action that historically has only helped a scant few outside the pages of those once-popular dime novels.

"What is required of us now is a new era of responsibility – a recognition, on the part of every American, that we have duties to ourselves, our nation, and the world, duties that we do not grudgingly accept but rather seize gladly, firm in the knowledge that there is nothing so satisfying to the spirit, so defining of our character, than giving our all to a difficult task."

Yet somehow, coming from him, the words did not echo with the racial, gender, and even class-based restrictions such "boot-strap" rhetoric often carries. I did not feel the resentment that often bubbles up when politicians imply that hard-working Americans need only work harder to achieve the American Dream, because I believe Obama plans to follow up his expectations of the American public with government policies that support those expectations. For so long, we were left to sink or swim entirely on our own -- and told our success or failure was, and should be, entirely of our own making. But now there is an increased feeling that more of the people who get a return -- financial, educational, and even personal -- on the investment of their time, energy, and labor will not be hindered by their skin color, sex, social status or even last name. Furthermore, they will now get the resources they need to help level the playing field, and it will make the work and sacrifice a heck of a lot more worth it.

That was the hope I saw in so many people's eyes as they watched the swearing-in ceremony. That -- in addition to the diversity that has finally, finally, finally arrived in Washington -- is what people were smiling about as they left Washington or turned off the TV and returned to life that includes inadequate jobs that don't pay the bills, apartments half the size of the homes they lost, cars that don't run and that they can't afford to fix, and food that offers no nutritional value, but was on sale. President Obama, now more than ever, offers hope for change -- and I am among the tens of millions who believe he will bring it.

New Year's Gratitude

Well, those "few days" went by a lot faster than I had counted on, and I never got that Christmas entry posted. C'est la vie, I guess. Somehow, I seemed busier over winter break than I had been during the semester. Considering we replaced a toilet, painted the upstairs and downstairs hallways and stairwells, decorated and undecorated for Christmas, and dealt with the onslaught of toys from Santa, I refuse to be too hard on myself for neglecting my blog for a few weeks.

But I'm back, and I have a million topics I would love to address in thorough, analytical detail. Unfortunately, I refuse to begin my 2009 entries with negative discussions, and since just about all the news these days is depressing and demoralizing (with the notable exception of Barrack Obama's impending inauguration), it will all have to wait until after I get some positive comments posted.

We are now just over two weeks into 2009, and so far I'm doing pretty good with my resolutions. Home improvement projects (both planned and unplanned) are getting done at an acceptable pace; I've made some steady progress replacing unhealthy food selections with choices that offer more nutritional value; and I just finished the most comprehensive and ambitious household budget I have ever designed. Now the hard part with staying within its confines! As a set of priorities, it might not win any awards, but these are the areas where I see room for the most improvement in my life right now.

More importantly than just fulfilling its traditional role, my resolutions list reminds me to be grateful for the items I didn't have include. I'm fortunate enough to spend most of my days in the company of my husband and son and weekends with my parents and sisters, so I didn't need to resolve to spend more time with family. I love my job, am fulfilled by it, am adequately (though not generously) compensated, and have no need to seek better employment in 2009. I have no need to move into a newer/bigger/better house in a newer/bigger/better neighborhood (though I'm always on the lookout for old homes near Mill Creek Park!). I feel that I am at least somewhat contributing to the betterment of society via the subjects I address in each of my classes. And I take time for me in the evenings and am lucky enough to have willing babysitters so Andy and I can go on the occasional date or even just play some racquetball at the rec center.

My resolutions for 2009 serve as reminders that in this economy with a 7 percent unemployment rate, negligible and risky financial security, foreclosures abounding, and more bad news cropping up by the day, I am fortunate. So many people are beginning this year without jobs they've held for decades, without retirement funds they'd worked their whole lives for, and without the houses they had made into homes. While I recognize there are areas of my life that require (perhaps significant) improvement, I can take much more comfort than others in the fact that my foundation is strong. My deepest hope is that a year from now, I can say the same.