Welcome to Red Mom Blue Mom, ParentDish's special coverage of the 2008 Presidential election. Each Tuesday through November 4, columnists Rachel Campos-Duffy (Red Mom) and Ada Calhoun (Blue Mom) will take on issues relevant to parents on both sides of the aisle. You can find past Red Mom/Blue Mom posts here.


Blue Mom: Who owns America's kitchen table?
By Ada Calhoun

When Joe Biden gave his first speech as the vice presidential nominee, he said, "Ladies and gentlemen, your kitchen table is like mine. You sit there at night . . . after you put the kids to bed and you talk . . . about how much you are worried about being able to pay the bills. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that's not a worry John McCain has to worry about. It's a pretty hard experience. He'll have to figure out which of the seven kitchen tables to sit at."

Burn!

McCain's had trouble relating directly to everyday people, especially since Biden joined the Obama ticket. According to OutTheOtherEar, Biden has the lowest net worth of all the senators, and impeccable working-class credibility.

And don't the Republicans know it. According to a September report on Politico, Karl Rove said, "The most important thing for McCain to do is find a way to show a comfort with the kitchen table issues."

Enter Sarah Palin.

Asked on Hugh Hewitt's show, "Have you and your husband, Todd, ever faced tough economic times where you had to sit around a kitchen table and make tough choices?" Palin said,"Todd and I, heck, we're going through that right now even as we speak, which may put me again kind of on the outs of those Washington elite who don't like the idea of just an everyday working class American running for such an office."

At last week's vice presidential debate, Biden and Palin worked hard to out-kitchen-table each other. In the course of the ninety-minute exchange, the phrase "kitchen table" was used five times.

The kitchen table has proved to be an especially powerful metaphor, because what we need at the moment are leaders who embody the pragmatism of a family forced into a tight spot by circumstances who together can figure out a way to get back on track.

We don't really need someone who has been broke, but a little personal fiscal suffering doesn't hurt. As Chris Rock said in a much-watched Larry King episode last week, the candidate who understands the economy best is always "the guy with one house."


Red Mom: Can't solve debt with more debt
By Rachel Campos-Duffy

Besides Texas Congressman Ron Paul, only Governor Sarah Palin is talking plainly and honestly about the role of personal responsibility in this financial crises. During last week's vice-presidential debates she said: "Let's do what our parents told us before we probably even got that first credit card. Don't live outside of our means. We need to make sure that as individuals we're taking personal responsibility through all of this... we have an opportunity to learn a heck of a lot of good lessons through this."

"Kitchen table" issues are front and center this election. Palin's statement resonated strongly with Americans on both sides of the political aisle because she spoke to the heart of the conversations so many of us are having around our own kitchen tables after the kids have gone to bed.

Since the financial crises, my husband and I have recommitted to our budget and canceled a family trip we had planned for the fall. Both of us have October birthdays and we made a pact not to buy each other gifts and to celebrate at home this year. And for the first time ever, I may actually get my Christmas shopping done early because I'm already actively seeking out sales and determined to avoid last minute Christmas impulse purchases.

American families understand that in difficult financial times they cut back. Shouldn't the federal government employ the same kitchen table common sense principals? Unfortunately not. In fact, but for a few conservative Republicans and blue-dog Democrats, our representatives in Washington thought this was a good time to spend more of our money. That's akin to Sean and I deciding that this would be a great time to hire a designer and redecorate. The supposedly do-or-die $700 billion bailout bill included more than $100 billion in additional pork spending and special interest tax breaks. And it's worth noting that the $700 billion loan is actually money we are borrowing from China since our national debt, the cumulative amount the federal government has borrowed and not repaid, is a record $9.5 trillion.

The Democrat-controlled Congress holds the purse strings and government spending is out of control. Our politicians want us to believe that going $700 billion dollars deeper into debt is going to help what is essentially a debt problem. It's like believing you can cure Joe Six-Pack's drinking problem with a case of Sam Adams.

Twenty-four hour Internet access is so common these days that one out of every four workers plan to work during their 2008 vacations, according to a survey conducted by careerbuilder.com, which is an increase of 20 percent over the previous year's results.

Almost one in ten surveyed also said their bosses expect them to check e-mail and/or voice mail while they are away from the office, and 15 percent of workers said they gave up vacation days in 2007 because they were too busy to use them.

Industry and expectations seem to play a big role in workers' desire to stay connected. We all know how important the IT guys is -- and next time you call him because your laptop explodes, be nice. Nearly 19 percent of IT professionals said checking their e-mail and voice mail during vacation is expected, compared to 12 percent of those in the professional and business services sectors.

As a mother of two who works out of the home, my work weeks are just as busy -- if not more so -- than when I hunkered down in my cube at the Huge Multinational Corporation that used to write my paycheck. The rewards of being home while my kids are growing up are more than worth the trade-offs, but the downside is that working at home means I can work pretty much 24/7.

Lately I've found myself checking my e-mail when I could be on the floor playing with my son or daughter. We're traveling this week, and I won't have access to my beloved interwebs for two entire days -- that's 48 hours of unplugged time.

I have to say I'm really looking forward to it. You know things are bad when a 12-hour, two-day road trip with your husband, a 3-year-old and an 8-week old is considered a "vacation."

What about you? Are you over-connected or do yo know when to turn it off?

Source

Who's to blame for the demise of the nuclear family? Why, Bridget Jones, of course.

Wait ... what? A fictional character responsible for breaking up families? That's what David Willetts, who recently spoke at the UK's Conservative party conference thinks, anyway. Calling Bridget a real "phenomenon," he went on to say that more women than ever are finishing university. While that statistic is "fantastic," he went on to say that "even if men want to be the breadwinner ... they are no longer given the opportunity to bring home the bacon, and the evidence is that that is bad for families."

Here I thought I was a part of Generation X, but actually, I'm part of the "Bridget Jones generation" -- educated women who want to have it all, but are crushing the self-esteem of men everywhere and the notion of marriage and family in the process. Give me a break. Willett's attempt to pin the problems of the nuclear family on educated women, using a popular female icon, just shows that he doesn't understand the needs of a modern family or equality issues.

Besides, I don't think I'd call Bridget a feminist, would you? What do you think of Willett's comments?

Source

Sure, the economy is going down the drain and everyone is nervously checking the news to see if their bank is still in business, but that doesn't mean parents aren't going to be dressing their little ones up as pirates and princesses this Halloween. In fact, according to a survey conducted by the National Retail Federation, more people are planning on celebrating this year than last. They are also planning to spend more this year -- $66.54 on average.

"Halloween sales may be a bright spot for retailers this fall," said Tracy Mullin, NRF President and CEO. "Consumers -- who have been anxious and uncertain for the past several months -- may be looking at Halloween as an opportunity to forget the stresses of daily life and just have a little fun." Plus, you can't disappoint the kids, now can you?

So, how are people spending those Halloween dollars? There's twenty-four dollars and change for costumes, another twenty for candy, and eighteen dollars for decorations. There's even almost four dollars going to greeting cards (that would be my wife's family). With nearly three out of four people planning on handing out candy, but only about a third of respondents planning on taking kids trick-or-treating, there will undoubtedly be some leftovers. Yum!

Source

I remember being a kid and struggling with my mother every Sunday about what I was going to wear to church. Church was a reason to get dressed up, but all my nicer clothes were uncomfortable and I didn't like the thought of being trapped in them every week for even a few hours. While I liked the concept of the frilly dresses and whatnot, the shoes and tights were uncomfortable. I couldn't wait to get home to get all that off of me, to the point where I am not so sure I was paying much attention!

Holidays are one thing--kids get stuffed into nice dresses, tights and miniature suits for a few hours at a time, tops. Once they hit their own homes, half that stuff usually comes off and they are free to run around in more comfortable attire. Depending on where you live, the clothes can get more or less formal. IN New York City, for example, our kids are nothing if not fashion plates. No one seems to bat an eyelash at spending $100 on an outfit her kid is going to wear exactly one time for one special occasion. The good news is the mom usually knows at least one other family to pass the garments on to, so the item does get Miltie-wear.

In other parts of the country jeans are seen as acceptable. Throw a nice sweater on top of it and some decent shoes (which for a child can be unbelievably pricey) and the kids are good to go. They're probably more comfortable, too. Not sure if jeans are considered acceptable, at say, church, but they do fly at brunches and holiday gatherings in general.' Given the current economy, I wonder if kids' clothes will continue to become less formal as folks turn towards wardrobes they've already amassed.

What do your kids wear when the go out? My kid? Well, he wears whatever I mine from the gloriously wonderful clothes my friends lend me from when their sons were that age. We have a little network of lending going so the clothes we do buy get maximum wear.

Source

Money is a hot-button issue in many relationships, and when one spouse is more dedicated to the mall than their marriage it can spell disaster.

Being married to an over-spender can result in debt and divorce, according to psychologists. And don't think the faltering economy will stop them -- a survey of 1,000 households recently released by HSBC Bank USA revealed that more than half had splurged on something in the recent past, and many did so just because it felt good.

If you're married to someone with "gotta have it" syndrome, you can save your marriage if you tackle the problem together. The first step, experts say, is recognizing that the behavior does have an underlying cause. Most compulsive shoppers are dealing with issues that range from feeling neglected to low self-esteem. Then sit down together, analyze your partner's spending triggers, and write down a plan of attack.

I'm the first one to take out my credit card, but my husband and I agreed to set -- and stick to -- a strict budget this year. We also combined our checking accounts for the first time in our marriage. Knowing I'm accountable to him makes it a lot easier to ask myself, "do I really need that?"

Are you the thrifty one, or do you buy impulsively in spite of your budget?

Source

Welcome to Red Mom Blue Mom, ParentDish's special coverage of the 2008 Presidential election. Each Tuesday through November 4, columnists Rachel Campos-Duffy (Red Mom) and Ada Calhoun (Blue Mom) will take on issues relevant to parents on both sides of the aisle. You can find past Red Mom/Blue Mom posts here.

Red Mom: Stop living a lie!
by Rachel Campos-Duffy

I tried to boycott Oprah after she wouldn't invite Sarah Palin to the show, but I didn't last very long -- only three days, I think. So last week, back to my weekday ritual of watching Oprah while making dinner, I chopped vegetables while financial counselor Suze Orman ripped into a nice, middle-class couple who were in total denial about the state of their finances. Just as I began to wonder if these people would ever recover from this public lashing or venture out in public again, Suze turned, looked right into the camera and directed her words at all the home viewers who may be using credit cards unwisely: "Stop living a lie!" she yelled.

I thought a lot about Suze's words this past week as the nation's financial crisis unfolded. While many American families spent the week revising their budgets and preparing for leaner times, our "leaders" came up with yet another scheme to continue living the lie: a $700 billion tax payer-funded bailout that does nothing to reduce our $9 trillion dollar annual budget deficit. What a joke!

Common-sense Americans know that in government and families, debt is at the heart of this problem. Couple the de-stigmatization of debt with an American sense of entitlement -- "I deserve it!" -- and you start to see how we got here. The one thing the rich, poor, and middle class all have in common is a penchant for charging everything from clothes to family vacations. And on these trips, no one packs the minivan with a cooler anymore. It's drive-thrus and restaurants for America's most pampered generation.

In 1995, the Clinton administration expanded the "Community Reinvestment Act" in its eagerness to offer everyone, even those who couldn't afford it, a piece of the American dream. In exchange for boasting rights to a "more broadly shared prosperity," one of Clinton's favorite claims, the act incentivized high-risk lending practices to minorities and low-income communities.

Of course, I would like everyone to share in the American dream of home ownership, but Clinton's policy essentially offered a lie (they couldn't afford the houses!) and resulted in defaults that are the cause of our current economic woes. And while politicians on both sides of the aisle took campaign money from lending institutions, it was Democrats like Rep. Barney Frank, chair of the House Financial Services Committee, and Chuck Schumer, chair of the Joint Economic Committee, who criticized and voted against Republican legislation, co-sponsored by John McCain, that would have reigned in these dangerous practices.

During last Friday night's first Presidential debate, John McCain suggested a spending freeze on non-essential government expenditures in response to the crisis. He was widely mocked by the Democrats and the press for making this statement. But if American families must cut back and live within their means, why shouldn't we expect the government to do the same?

In a plea for a return to the concept of delayed gratification, Oprah sensibly asked her audience, "Remember lay-away? What ever happened to lay-away?" Indeed, bring back lay-away -- for Main Street, Wall Street and Washington!


Blue Mom: Bailing out the bullies
by Ada Calhoun





My favorite explanation of the U.S. financial crisis comes from Rachel Maddow. This bailout analogy casts Wall Street as a sugared-up child left with buckets of Halloween candy and no adult supervision.

It's perfect, because parenting is, in essence, regulation. How much do you get onto your kid to behave a certain way, and how much do you let him do what he wants? Do you step in and clean up his messes punishment-free, or do you make him reap the consequences of his actions?

There are kids on the playground where I spend a lot of the week whose parents are the disciplinary equivalent of small-government fiscal conservatives.

"You just gotta let it work itself out," they say, shrugging and going back to their Blackberries. "I told him not to snatch toys, but he just doesn't listen."

Meanwhile, their kid is running across the concrete with toy cars in every pocket and four in each hand, leaving a small army of weeping toddlers in his wake.

Of course, sometimes things like that do work themselves out. The preyed-upon kids get tougher and hold on tighter to their Tonka trucks. After a weekend at his old-school, no-nonsense Grandma's, the kid starts sharing. The hands-off parents are vindicated.

But sometimes, things don't work themselves out. Sometimes the kid grows into a sociopathic monster with no friends because he never learned how to be decent.

For the past eight years, the Bush administration has been the worst kind of laissez-faire parent, letting Wall Street and predatory lenders and oil companies and a lot of other grabby kids do whatever they wanted. And things worked fine, until they didn't at all.

Now all the good kids, bruised and battered and toy-less, have to break their piggy banks to help the bullies. The government has to step in -- we have to step in -- and insist on a higher standard of behavior, not just because we love our plastic fire trucks, but because we don't want to support a culture of greed, selfishness and fear.

According to an article in the Detroit Free Press, kids' rooms are one of the fastest growing luxury markets, bringing in almost $10 million a year for retailers. Fueled by shows like "Trading Spaces" Boys vs. Girls" and the well-publicized lifestyles of celebrity offspring, kids are looking for that show-stopping personal space - and their parents are indulging them.

Have you seen the Pottery Barn Kids catalog lately? There isn't one single room in my house that's as nice as the nurseries in that envy-inducing tome. I feel like I need to go work in a soup kitchen after I leaf through one, just to remember that very few people actually live that way.

Smaller businesses are capitalizing on the craze, as well. Apparently, one Michigan firm specializes in nothing but "lavish" kids' rooms, and the clients aren't limited to teens. Even toddlers are getting in on the act, with custom-painted murals and expensive cribs.

What exactly constitutes a "luxurious" touch? According to the article, they range from the minor (vivid paint colors) to the outrageous (leather floors!).

In my day, having a double bed when you were under the age of 18 was considered a luxury. What's next? Diamond-studded toothbrushes? Cashmere diaper covers? Fur-lined onesies?

And you? Are you a luxury lover or is your style more spartan than starlet?

Source

A new resale shop opened just down the street from us, and I couldn't be happier. It's clean, well-decorated, has a beautiful play area, and only carries name brand clothing in good condition. Today, I spent a little over $35 and came home with two complete outfits for each child, two pairs of Carter's fleece pajamas, two new leotards (tags attached!), and a pair of shoes for each kid. Granted, not all the clothing is in new condition, but it all appears to have been worn a minimum number of times.

Resale shopping is one of the ways our family saves money. If I had to buy enough brand new outfits to clothe my kids each season, I'd quickly go broke. Usually, I buy one or two new, then depend on hand-me-downs, generous grandmothers, and resale items to fill in the gaps. But a friend of mine wrinkles up her nose every time she hears that I went to the resale shop. "Used clothes? No thank you."

My theory is that once you wash a new outfit, it doesn't look new anymore anyway, so what's the big deal? But she gets seriously turned off by the idea that her little one is wearing another child's cast-offs. What about you? Do you use resale shops when buying children's clothing, or are you as squeamish about this practice as my friend?

Kate Moss has been known for a lot of things. In the eighties she was the face of the Calvin Klein fragrance Obsession. She was a supermodel. She was constantly embattled over her (lack of) weight. Then she had a child, and normalcy returned, until she was constantly in the spotlight for drugs and alleged partying ways.

In fact, rumor had it that Kate split from her most recent boyfriend, rocker Jamie Hince, because of her lifestyle. Not so, insists a source, who claims the real reason the couple split is that Moss was ready to become a mom again. According to the source the supermodel was keen to add to her family, which already consists of five-year-old daughter from a previous relationship.

So maybe Kate really is like the rest of us? She wanted a commitment, couldn't get one from the guy--he wanted to focus on his band--and perhaps she felt the clock ticking. Or not. I mean, this woman carries handbags that are worth more than my rent. But hey, you gotta feel for a woman who, if it's true, puts her family (and her biological needs) first. Good luck, Kate!

Kate's no stranger to the camera. Perhaps if she succeeds in becoming a mom again, she can join the ranks of these pregnant cover girls:

Source

Twenty-three-year-old celebrity kid Kelly Osbourne is set to write her memoirs. The "Papa Don't Preach" cover singer, who is famous basically for having a famous dad, will publish an autobiography of what it's like to grow up as the child of metal rock god Ozzy Osbourne.

Kelly has been to rehab twice, allegedly for painkillers, and apparently was ensnared in some sort of controversy with singer Christina Aguilera, which will also be chronicled. We've seen most of Kelly already, as she starred alongside daddy Osbourne and mother Sharon Osbourne in a reality television series presented by MTV.

Mom Sharon, who also serves as Ozzie's manager (and has for many years, basically rocketing him to stardom), has already written her memoirs. Like mother like daughter, I guess! Virgin Books in the UK will publish the latest from the Osbourne clan.

I want to see a book from daughter Amy, who allegedly refused to have anything to do with the reality series!

Source

I read an article on babble from a mother who decided, along with her husband, to not send her child to kindergarten this fall. Instead the couple are planning on home-schooling their son, along with a group of other New York City-based parents with the same idea. Upon initial read of the article, I didn't really get much of a takeaway. In fact, it seemed like homeschooling better suited the lifestyles of the parents than serving as a decision based on the child's needs. That said, it seems like parents know their children better than anyone else, and therefore should know what method of learning is best suited for their kids. The author had her reasons for doing what she did--or, rather, not doing what she would have--and she should be given cred for making such a decision.

Some of the other parents in the homeschooling group felt that the schools were too focused on testing and not really teaching kids what they needed to know, etc. Standardized testing really has taken hold of our community, and both parents and teachers have felt the uncomfortable crunch. Parents are starting to feel their children aren't being taught how to learn anymore, just what to learn. I can see a real argument for homeschooling.

But, is that the right reason to pull a kid out of school? Is any reason good enough? Or, to the contrary, do the schools need to start proving to us they can offer more than what we as parents can do for our children? If schools aren't listening to the needs of parents and children then what is the point? I personally don't know enough about proper education and the education system to be able to make a decision as hard as keeping my child out of school. Others seem to have it all worked out, down to ordering specific, home-based curriculum to teach their kids themselves. Some prefer to let the child learn more freestyle, and eschew more traditional methods. I'll tell you right now the last thing my kid needs is for me to be his main teacher! It's terrifying to me to even begin to think about everything I think he ought to know, and then how I would get all that knowledge to him. He'd be better off learning from our weiner dog!

So who's right? Do parents know enough to be able to make decisions like homeschooling for their kids? Does the education system really serve our needs and is it really preparing our children for the future? I think the answer probably lies somewhere outside both those things, but only time will tell.

Source

Whether or not you would is one thing. Whether or not you SHOULD is another. Many business owners, especially those with smaller businesses, tend to rely on and hire members of their family to help them out. Some of those stints are short term and some of them are all the way up to partner (or, as I like to think of it, co-conspirator). But, is it a good idea to mix the personal with the professional? After all, you can't get any more personal than family.

The positive aspects of bringing a family member into the work fold include the fact that most likely the family member already knows a lot about the business and would require less training. Additionally, some family members are more likely to work harder than someone who is not family out of loyalty.

The downside of hiring family is that some of them might expect kickbacks or special treatment solely because they're related. Others are less likely to work as hard as their non-related counterparts because they think they don't have to. Then there's the whole mixing personal and professional rule of thumb we've always been told to avoid. Those two things are said to never really mix. Yet, many of the world's most successful businesses have been family operated. When things are going well, isn't it family you want to share your successes with the most? Likewise, when things aren't going well, most likely it's your family you turn to in hard times for support.

What do you think? Is it ever a good idea to employ or work for your family, or is it a bad mix? Would you or do you work with your family?

Source

Actress and sometime do-gooder Angelina Jolie claims she makes action movies for her children. I'm not sure who got her to come out of her shell long enough to hear this information--Jolie has been tucked away safely since the birth of her twins Vivienne and Knox--but perhaps this is old info just now being issued to keep us satisfied while we await her return to the media frenzy that is her life.

According to Jolie, she wants her kids to be able to see the films and be proud of her. I'm not sure how proud anyone would be of efforts like Tombraider 2, but hey, Jolie claims to also do all her own stunts--that would be pretty rockin' if it's fact. Jolie says she does that to prove to her children they can do anything to which they set their minds. Fair enough.

The star should be more proud of her philanthropic ways, which I am also sure she hopes to pass on to her kids. Learn by example, right? If that's true then there should be six more philanthropists among the Jolie-Pitt clan to carry on the work of Ange and Brad Pitt. Either that or they'll all want to appear in remakes of their parents' films!

Source

You thought gas was expensive at more than four dollars a gallon, eh? Well try paying eleven dollars a gallon for milk and see how long you keep up that "no soda for kids" rule! That's the price people are paying in some parts of rural Alaska where the cost of living is extraordinarily high. And what about gas? Try more than nine dollars a gallon in some towns.

With median incomes around $25,000 per year in some of these rural areas, it's no wonder many families are considering heading to the big cities in search of lower prices and higher wages. "We need immediate relief," said Mike Williams of the Alaska Intertribal Council. "I don't want to see all the young people and families leave to live in Anchorage and leave the elders behind in the village."

Community leaders, businesses, and politicians are working together to come up with solutions, but it seems to me that it would be very difficult to try and raise a family under those conditions. I know I would be headed into town. "This has reached a critical point to where we will now have [to] decide if we are going to feed our young or keep them warm," said Ron Hoffman of the Association of Village Council Presidents Regional Housing Authority. I know I would want to do both.

Source