As I began writing this post, my brain kept buzzing with that song He’s got the Whole World in his Hands.  A more apt title for the Obama campaign would be He’d Better Balance the Whole World in his Hands, particularly if he plans to pull off his election promises.

It’s easy to get caught up in the Obama-Biden message–or at least get caught by their message.  Let’s face  it, Senator Obama mesmerizes people.  Just look at the crowds, nodding and chanting in hypnotic agreement.  Furthermore,  Senator Obama has promised some pretty attractive things, such as providing universal health care coverage.

But I don’t think he can deliver on these promises.  Nothing personal–I don’t think anyone can.  How can the government exercise fiscal restraint while continuing to spend?  Senator Obama claims this can be done.  Here are just a few of his spending proposals:

1. Provide national health care coverage.
2. Invest in technology for alternative energy sources.
3. Provide new jobs in the energy sector.
4. Offer every American youth an opportunity to attend college upon completing community service.
5. Give temporary assistance to families for high gasoline prices.
6. Invest in rural schools and businesses.

This would all be done while lowering taxes for the middle class and providing a relief check  for those not currently paying taxes.

I have to admit, with the exception of the relief check, all of this makes me want to climb aboard the Obama-train.  Senator Obama says he can pay for all his programs (i.e. spend more,) while decreasing the deficit.  The Wall Street Journal discusses these two contradictions.

Sen. Obama has been able to win support by convincing voters he could simultaneously be a populist and a fiscal disciplinarian, that he could invest in education, energy and health care and adhere to rules that say additional spending must be more than offset by cuts or tax increases. He attacks greed and excess in Wall Street, yet reaches out to assure financial leaders he understands markets’ needs.

But if Sen. Obama wins on Tuesday and Democrats expand their congressional majority, the party in power will quickly have to reconcile these seeming contradictions into a legislative strategy.

Is there something we don’t know? I doubt it.  If he can pull this off, he is pulling a rabbit out of a hat, and I’m looking for a president grounded in reality not a magician who toys with illusions.  And the reality is that we need to cut spending if we are to reduce our national debt, which currently hovers around 10.5 trillion dollars. 

How can we possibly pay for national health care coverage,  education,  technological advances,  and even a possible surge in Afghanistan (proposed  by Obama)?  We can’t really know the full cost of these programs at this time.  But Senator Obama has given us a few details about paying for his health care proposal.  So let’s explore this.

According to the Obama-Biden campaign website (as of this writing), tax revenues will cover the the plan.

Barack Obama will pay for his $50 - $65 billion health care reform effort by rolling back the Bush tax cuts for Americans earning more than $250,000 per year and retaining the estate tax at its 2009 level.

Why would this work? We couldn’t afford national coverage before Bush instituted his tax cuts. We couldn’t afford it prior to our mounting deficit. A national health care plan could not get passed with a balanced budget during the Clinton administration. Paperless offices and preventive care have been with us for years, so how could this make a dent in offsetting the costs? Obama says he offers hope. First, no one individual, nor one administration, has the elixir to all the country’s woes. Anyone who tells you otherwise is either selling snake oil or not in touch with reality. Second, we don’t need false hope. I do believe we can accomplish change, but with the state of our economy and our deficit, it will have to happen slowly and incrementally.

The Obama health care plans is very costly. We must ask ourselves if this is the right move, or is there another alternative. In an NPR interview, health economist, Joe Antos, explains how costly and impractical the plan would be.

Antos says the biggest problem with Obama’s health plan isn’t how little it will save, but how much it will spend. One of Obama’s key promises is under his plan, everyone will be able to get a health plan at least as good as those available to members of Congress.
“If your congressman is like your average federal employee, he’s got the Blue Cross Standard Option (plan), and it costs in excess of $12,000 a year,” Antos says. “That isn’t going to happen. It can’t happen.”
Such a generous benefit package, combined with Obama’s promise to limit out-of-pocket health costs, would require enormous public subsidies. The Obama campaign itself estimates the plan could add as much as $60 billion a year to the nation’s $2 trillion health tab.
“We could be talking about 10, 15, $25,000 of subsidy for an average low-income family that is required to put in, through premiums and out-of-pocket expenses, $1,500 to $2,000,” says Antos.

On the Obama side, NPR spoke to David Cutler, a Harvard economist who helped create Obama’s health care plan.

Cutler says he knows the plan will be expensive. And he doesn’t apologize for it.

Well, I admire the guy’s honesty.

So once again, I’m asking how Obama plans to reduce spending and pay for all these programs.  Realistically, it just isn’t possible.  This doesn’t make Barack Obama a bad man. It just makes him a man.

A trip to a pumpkin farm always signals the end of fresh local produce.  Matt pulled out the last few carrots from the garden and we said good-bye to the lettuce which hung in surprisingly well.  But the last hurrah was finding a farm to pick out our pumpkins and enjoy some hot cider.  For us, that’s when the fat lady sings. 

To celebrate–or commiserate–this end, we spent a cold Saturday selecting pumpkins at a local pumpkin patch.  Being hardy Wisconsonites, we handled it without too much whining.  (Any whining that did occur, probably came from me.)  Before we left,  we rewarded ourselves with cider and donuts, making it worth every toe-numbing second. 

The local pumpkin patch is really not that local for us.  “Down on the Farm” is in the southwestern part of Wisconsin in a little town called Fayette, right near Dodgeville.  While Dodgeville is listed as the address,  you reach the farm before hitting the city limits of Dodgeville if your coming from the east.  Highway G winds through the quiet little farming community of Fayette, the signs taking you right to “Down on the Farm”.  It took us about forty-five minutes to reach Fayette from the Monroe area.  

My son had already been to the farm on a school field trip this year, and my daughter had gone last year with her preschool when we lived in Illinois.  Both kids loved it.  After seeing it for myself, I understood why. 

The place offers a lot of things to do, including a corn maze, hay rides, play area, gift shop, and of course pumpkins.  I thought the gift shop was pretty reasonable.  We skipped the corn maze because it takes about thirty five minutes and I didn’t think Little Miss would make it through because of the cold (or maybe I wouldn’t make it through).  The kids enjoyed playing the bean bag toss and climbing over the bails of hay in the play area.  The farm also puts on an annual one-night haunted house. 

The two owners, Joann and Monique, run the farm more as a hobby than a money making enterprise.  I find this a little sad.  They put so much work into it, and it is so well done, they deserve to profit from it.  Unfortunately, I think so many local businesses and growers make just enough to cover expenses, if they’re lucky.  It’s a great service to the surrounding communities and tourists, and  since its on the way to Dodgeville, it really wouldn’t be that out of the way if you’re in the general area and wanted to make a day of sight-seeing and shopping.

We spent the afternoon carving pumpkins and roasting pumpkin seeds.  I had forgotten how sticky and time-consuming it was to pick through the seeds, rinse them, and then roast them.  Good thing we only do this once a year.

So every night, after the kids are put to bed, and sometimes a little before I sit down in front of the television and I settle in for my healthly dose of financial ruin and political catastrophe.  In the 9:00 hour I usually flip around between Fox and CNN.  When I flip over to CNN the guy formerly known as the host of the reality game show, “The Mole”, Anderson Cooper is now the guy “keeping them honest” for CNN.  For the past two weeks he’s been running a series called, ”The 10 Most Wanted: Culprits of the Collapse“.  This of course is referring to the credit mess our country and now the world finds itself.

The Culprits of the Collapse according to Anderson are,

“..a rogue gallery of Wall Street executives, politicians, and government officials who did not do their jobs. It’s time you know their names, their faces, it’s time they be asked to account for their actions.”

These are the culprits Cooper selected:

1. (Check, but #1?) YOU!. Us, the consumer.  According to the article cheap credit “is like crack”.  We are dramatically outspending our saving habits.  This is probably true, but someone had to make the crack and sell it, yes? 
2. (CHECK!) Franklin Raines for Fannie Mae CEO.  Raines hid problems with the books at Fannie Mae so he and the other executives did not lose large personal bonuses.  Resigned after SEC investigation backed regulators claims of hiding financial problems.
3. (huh? Check.) Bear Stearns CEO James Cayne.  Well, Cooper’s report is basically a hit piece on Cayne as just being a bad guy.  There is zero information on what exactly he did other than the claim that he wasn’t paying attention, his employees didn’t like him, and he ran the company into the ground.  Nothing is reported on how exactly he ran it into said ground.  Bear Stearns should be on the list, but Cooper didn’t make the case.
4. (check.) Countrywide and Angelo Mozilo.Mozilo is former Countrywide CEO.  Countrywide was the king of sub-prime mortgage lending.  At least they were honest, saying, “They were acting in line with goals of both the Clinton and Bush administrations” to put more low income people into housing.  Claiming they were only using the tools such as sub-prime lending the government had made available to them. 
5. (check.) Beazer Homes - Home Builder and Mortgage Company.  Under investigation by the FBI, Treasury, and the US Justice Department for fraud change mortgage applications to make buyers look like they qualified. 
6. (easy scapegoat?) Alan Greenspan for Fed Chairman.  The claim here is that he kept interest rates too low, allowing banks to offer low short-term teaser rates too easily.  In my opinion, his job is to manage the money, not regulate the banks and insurers. (Chris Dodd, Barney Frank couldn’t get some time here? They ARE the oversight of the banks and insurers.)
7. (check?) Former Senator Phil Gramm.  According to the Cooper’s report, he is on the list because in 1999 he push a bill, which was passed, to allow banks and insurance companies to merge.  In 2000 he led the charge to reduce regulation on those two business units.  My trouble with this report, is a lot of their analysis relies on an economist that Cooper’s report refers to as “progressive”.  Additionally, the regulation that still existed, even after Gramm reduced it, still caught the problem.  Congress decided to ignore it.
8. (check, I think.) Chris Cox, SEC Chairman.“The Sheriff of the Stock Exchange” The claim is Cox ignored the warning signs of the coming collapse.  Cox claims he didn’t have the authority to step in.  At the very least, he’s accountable for not getting in front of every TV camera that would listen to tell the investors there is a problem.
9. (check.) Lehman Brothers and Richard Fuld.Fuld was Chairman of the Board for Lehman since 1994 until a few weeks ago. According to Cooper’s report Fuld pushed the company to continue to buy bad debt supposedly claiming people are making a “mountain out of mole hill” and “we’ll make a lot of money”. 
10. (check.) AIG and  Joe Cassano.  Cassano as head of AIG financial products division who willingly took on bad credit-default swaps and CDs. 

Anderson’s choices for the list and analysis of them are nothing more than a populist ratings piece.  There is no information or real analysis at all.  It’s thought provoking in the sense that celebrity rags provide headlines to think about while waiting in line at the grocery store.  If fact, by omission, I don’t think Mr. Keeping Them Honest was honest at all. 

Where is Christopher Dodd?  The guy who is on the record admitting he took sweetheart deals, and got loans nobody else in the country could get because he was a friend of Mozilo.  He is not so much as even mentioned in the piece by Cooper.  Dodd is THE CHAIR of the Housing, Banking, and Urban Affairs committee, and he is getting sweet heart deals from the lending company at the center of this crisis.  In my opinion he deserves more than a mention, but Cooper didn’t even give him that.

Maxine Waters was quoted in Cooper’s piece on Countrywide, like she was an authority, saying,

“Mozilo…tried to have people believe he was only after helping the poor people and minorities get into homes.” 

Cooper, again, makes no mention of Ms. Water’s role in all this.  In 2004, she endorsed Frank Raines, even after he resigned, and condemned the regulator for trying to warn the senate Fannie and Freddie have problems. 

“…under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines, everything in the 1992 Act has worked just fine.  In fact the GSE’s have exceeded their housing goals.  What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impeded on the affordable housing mission.  A mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100% loans.”

What’s the difference between what she claimed Mozilo was doing, and what she said?  She was supporting the exact same argument for which she criticized Countrywide.  Cooper couldn’t mention this?

Where oh where is Barney Frank?  (if I didn’t think it would annoy the readers, I would have made this blink)  This guy has continued to blatantly LIE about this entire situation and his roll in it, all the while blaming everyone else. 

In the very same hearings Waters made her comment to the Fannie & Freddie regulator Frank said,

“…you seem to be saying these [problems] are in areas that could raise safe and soundness concerns.  I don’t see anything in your report that raises safety and soundness problems!” 

While he was a ranking member of the Financial Service committee the Bush Administration and then Treasury Secretary Snow went before congress to try and get more regulatory oversight on Fannie and Freddie because of their growing size.  Frank said in those hearings, “Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are not in a crisis.”  He went on to say the government should be doing MORE to encourage low income families into home ownership.  He wasn’t done there, he went even further,

“The more people that, in my judgement, exaggerate a threat of safety and soundness, the more people conjure up the threat of serious financial loses to the Treasury, which I do not see.  I think we see entities that are fundamentally sound financially, and would withstand some of the disaster scenarios.  And even if there were a problem, the Federal government doesn’t bail them out.  The more pressure there is there, then the less I see in the terms of affordable housing.”

This guy is NOW the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee.  Anderson, couldn’t mention this either?

How about the fair housing act of 1977?  How about ACORN forcing and demonstrating against banks that would not give loans to people in low income neighborhoods?  How about a mention?

There is plenty of blame to go around here, but to not even mention some of these things is dishonest investigative journalism.  Anderson Cooper you can do better than this!

When the kids’ bedtime rolls around–and in our house that means eight o’clock, I am ready for them to go to sleep. The key word here is I, as in “I am ready”.  My children, they, are not ready to go to sleep.

While we are fairly strict about bedtime, we do allow them to read in bed. My daughter usually falls asleep right away, but my son is another story. If allowed, he’d stay up until midnight reading. 

Yesterday, my son came home from school ready to make up for all the time he was cruelly forced to sit at a desk and learn. He informed me that desk time cut into recess time. As a result, he and his friends were denied from playing Star Wars for an indefinite time period. So he bundled all this extra energy and brought it home. One minute he was jumping off his loft bed, claiming he was using his escape pod; the next minute he was outside doing something that irritated his sister enough for her come in and play by herself. Later the two of them were in the basement, my son chasing my daughter with his light saber. Eventually, my little Jedi was pretty worn out. By bedtime he was calmer, but he still had reserves of energy that could push a tired mother to tears. Of course, he claimed he wasn’t tired because of the “force”. His heavy eyes told me another story. In between yawns, he begged me to let him read just a few pages of one of his favorite space books. I agreed. We said our prayers; I kissed him goodnight; and then I left him reading about astronauts, rockets, moons, and faraway planets.

With both kids in bed, it was time for me to play catch-up: fold the wrinkled clothes that sat in the dryer all day, lay out clothes for the morning rush, return phone calls, and finish kitchen clean-up. Finally, I sat down to read. About half-way into a chapter, I went to check on my son. When I got near his room I could see the light under his door. I was irritated to say the least. It was now after nine o’clock, and I knew we were in for a rough morning if he was still awake. Bracing myself for an argument about the merits of staying up late, I opened the door.

The peaceful little guy, who lay sound asleep in his bed, didn’t remotely resemble the tornado-like energy that had claimed our house only a few hours earlier. On his chest, his book lay open, moving up and down rhythmically with his breathing. One of his spaceships sat precariously close to the edge of the bed. In his hand, he held one of his astronauts. This was definitely a mommy-moment.

I stood over him wondering. What imaginary scenario had he been playing? Was he pretending to be an astronaut who went to the moon? Was he pretending to be the first human to land on the Red Planet? (He had been reading about Mars earlier in the week.) What was he dreaming now? I hoped the dream was filled with all his happiest and most fantastical imaginings. All in the same moment, I was thrilled and sad–thrilled with his ability to dream, and sad that life might someday bleed him of that gift.

Every year, Halloween falls on the same day, October 31.  That means we are well past summer and deep into fall.  In most of the country, the trees are bare, and we wake up to frost-covered windshields and lawns.  In Wisconsin, where I live, we pull out our winter coats and can watch our breath hang in the air.

Why then do I see an over-abundance of costumes that  look like cheap make-shift summer clothing?  I’m specifically talking about girls’ costumes.  (Boys costumes offer a little more coverage, although they are just as cheaply made.)

My daughter wants to be Swiper the Fox, a character from Dora the Explorer.  I’m thinking, ”Great–a warm costume.”  After all, he is a fox…and he has fur.  He’s perfect for Wisconsin trick or treating.  She could wear fleece, jersey, flannel, or thermal something-or-other.  I’d rather turn her into a walking endorsement for L.L. Bean than to wrap her in some flimsy tissue-paper costume.  Amazingly, no sane adult would go outside in forty degree weather wearing gauzy or nylon costumes that show more skin than they cover.  Yet these costume manufacturers expect young childrens to walk from house to house begging for candy in these summer costumes.  Twenty minutes into trick or treating, parents often end up covering up the $30 worth of nylon and gauze with winter coats. 

I found no Swiper costumes.  I saw lots fairy costumes, which meant leotard, tights, and of course fairy wings.  Some of the other costumes for girls included a cheerleader, Hannah Montana (in a mini-skirt), nurse costume (no doctor in my daughter’s age range), and a gothic female vampire (mini-skirt and fishnet tights).  I’m going to skip my feminist critiques of the costume industry and focus on the practicality of such costumes.  With the exception of the nurse, all the costumes would be better suited for temperatures of sixty degrees or more.  (I’m also disciplining myself not to digress into the appropriateness of the costumes.  Do preschool girls really need to look like some goth vampire chick?)

For some talented people, it would be nothing to pull out the sewing machine and whip up some masterpiece.  But I hate sewing, and I’m lousy at it.  Instead I often end up either making a no-sew costume or embellishing something store-bought.  Family Fun magazine has had some great costumes in past October issues.  One year, my son was a penguin and last year he was a robot, both ideas from the magazine.  The costumes were inexpensive and easy to make.  He even helped make the robot costume.

I was disappointed with this year’s halloween issue, however.  The costumes went beyond bizarre.  One costume was sushi.  Sushi?  I can just imagine my son saying, “Mom, I don’t think I want to be Batman this year.  What I’d really like to be is a sushi roll.”

Fortunately, the online version of Family Fun offers a much better selection than the printed publication.  (If your child has his heart set on dressing up as raw, dead fish, the sushi costume is listed here too.)   Most costumes are simple and inexpensinve to make, even if you are like me and fear the sewing machine more than a root canal.  Your little fairy princess can trade the gauze and nylon capsleeves for a long-sleaved sweater or jersey and still look as magical as her tropically-dressed counterpart.  A few of the other costumes include a scarecrow, a farmer, and a gypsy–one of my favorites.  The lego costume probably earns the most points for both creativity and ingenuity.  I only wish had discovered it before I spent money on the Anakin Star Wars costume which my son will probably be one of a dozen. 

With a little prodding from me, my daughter decided to be a ladybug.   I didn’t use the ladybug from Family Fun, only because I came across it after already putting together the costume.  The wings and antennae came from a party store, costing me a little more than seven dollars.  For her clothing, we picked out a a black turtleneck, black pants, and a red fleece vest and a red fleece cap.  I’m planning on using fabric glue (my sewing cop-out) to adhere black felt dots to her vest and cap.

Since we’re taking a trick or treat hayride, the fleece will add that extra and necessary warmth.  Anakin can wear a coat under his costume.  Even with all these layers, I’m still bringing a wool blanket; after all, it is October 31, not August 31.

I don’t think the US Automakers get it, and I hope the US government doesn’t decide to bail them out investment bank style.  The Detroit Free Press has written an analysis on the plans GM has for Chrysler, should the merger talks between the companies come to fruition. 

GM is saying it would simply add the Chrysler brands to it’s already expansive product line.

Chrysler’s brands would become just like Chevrolet, Pontiac and Buick,

Conflicting brands could be dealt with in a few years after this industry turmoil has passed, one of these people added.

The US taxpayers have just given $25B in bailout money so that GM can continue to make the crappy cars it always has, and in addition take on the crappy cars made by Chrysler too, without changing a thing.  We’re giving them bailout money for this?  Why do we keep rescuing these automakers who refuse to change their business models?

If you look at this situation in more general terms, weren’t we just told the reason the credit problem is so bad, and the banks are failing is because they got so large.  The Treasury Secretary and the head of the Federal Reserve  told us that enormity is why their collapse requires a bailout.  Applying that same logic to the auto industry, it appears to me we have just given them $25B to consolidate into a few, more enormous companies.  Why is this OK, and that not OK?

Oh yeah, and by the way, there are 3500 Chrysler dealers nationwide.  What happens to those?

“excess dealers” would cost GM nothing in the short-term and that some — if not many — will fail on their own anyway.

So essentially GM is saying they need the US taxpayers to give them bailout money to keep them in operation.  However, when it comes to GM’s concern about Chrysler’s 3500 dealerships, let them fail on their own.

Stop the madness!  It’s time we let GM and Chrysler fail on their own.  The sun will still come up the next day.

Earlier this week, USAToday had an article about Rhode Island law forcing public schools to teach about dating violence.  The law requires students be taught to identify and react to signs of domestic violence.  I think this is a good thing, all kids should learn how to identify and deal with tough and dangerous situations.  We just need to be careful how we do it, and be wary of the unintended consequences.

My daughter is only 4, but I know in what will seem like no time at all, boys will be ringing the house, and knocking on the door.  However, I have concern over a law like this teaching girls that all boys are violent, obsessive, sex crazed beasts should they ever find themselves alone with one.  Although it may be true all boys are sex crazed beasts, there is something uncomfortable about this.  Are we teaching the girls don’t ever be alone with a boy because they will abuse you?   Additionally, the boys are sitting through these same classes.  What are they being taught?  Are they be emasculated?  They are basically being told if they get alone with a girl, they’ll become like a werewolf at the sight of the moon.

On the other hand, what responsibility do the girls have?   The story is about a law that was born out of the death of Lindsey Burke at the hands of a jealous boyfriend.  So I’m certainly not trying to minimize the responsibility of the boy.  Boys are overwhelmingly responsible for committing domestic abuse, the girls should be taught their behaviour matters.  They need to understand how they present themselves could be reflected back to them in an undesirable way.  Just like we’re all taught to be aware of our surroundings walking down a dark street at night, girls should be aware of their environment.  Someone should be teaching them if you dress like Brittney Spears, or act like Paris Hilton, you are walking down that dark street with your eyes closed.  It’s just not a smart thing to do.  They are temping the raging hormones of boys when they start grinding their butts into the pelvises of boys on the dance floor.

In the end, it’s a good thing we’re talking about these things, I just pray we are careful in the way we are doing it.

The successes of charter schools in Los Angeles’ rough South Central neighborhood are detailed in the WSJ Op-Ed pages this morning.  The Inner City Education Foundation (ICEF) is expanding because the demand is so overwhelming.

According to the article, the schools were started in 1994, and have the following track record

• -pilot school successfully graduated 2 classes
• -100% of the 2 graduated classes were accepted to college
• -very popular with black and hispanic communities

Public school comparison

• -”42% of black students quit before finishing school”
• -the 42% has increased by 80% in five years
• -public school testing more often that not underperforms charter school testing

Like KIPP, Green Dot and other charter school networks that aren’t constrained by union rules on staffing and curriculum, ICEF has an excellent track record, particularly with black and Hispanic students. In reading and math tests, ICEF charters regularly outperform surrounding traditional public schools as well as other Los Angeles public schools.

Not surprisingly, guess who opposes the charter schools?  The teachers unions.

Despite this success, powerful unions like the California Teachers Association and its political backers continue to oppose school choice for disadvantaged families. Last year, Democratic state lawmakers, led by Assembly Speaker Fabian Núñez, tried to force Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to sign a bill that would have made opening a new charter school in the state next to impossible. Mr. Nunez backed down after loud protests from parents in poorer neighborhoods.