At the time, I described that meeting’s attendees this way:

White guy, white guy, white guy, white guy, President Obama, Nancy Pelosi, Kathleen Sebelius, white guy, white guy, white guy who looks like he just ate a sour pickle.

And that’s pretty much how I’m feeling about this so-called “Super Committee.”  I’m not holding my breath that this group will be able to accomplish anything substantive — seems like a little window dressing to keep our eyes averted from the jobs issue for the rest of the summer.  But the one major thing this little club has in common with the health care meeting group is that it’s almost all WHITE GUYS!!

I don’t have anything against white guys as a general matter — after all, I married one.  But given the fact that our country is made up of a lot more than white guys, I’m hugely disappointed in those making the picks for this committee.  I give the Democrats a little more credit than the GOP, since they have some racial diversity on their team.  But, seriously, one woman?  I like Congressman Chris van Hollen and everything, but I expect more from the Democratic leaders, especially Nancy Pelosi, when it comes to being tuned in to making sure women have a significant place at the policy table.

Women are the majority of voters, the ones who make 80 percent of household economic decisions, and have recently become 50 percent of the nation’s breadwinners, so it’s seriously past time to put more of their perspective into the major national decisions that need to be made.  Study after study reflects the same conclusion about gender diversity — you get a broader range of perspectives and better decisions are made when there are more women involved.

Just ask Elizbaeth Warren.  Or Sheila Bair. Or Brooksley Born.  I haven’t interviewed her in many years, but I suspect former GOP Senator Nancy Kassebaum, the first woman elected to a full term in the U.S. Senate without having been preceded by her husband, would be on board with this theory, as well.

I love Patty Murray. She embraced, and then dispelled the myth of, being “just a mom in tennis shoes.”  And she is one of the most powerful Democrats on Capitol Hill.  So I’m thinking her voice and vote will carry a lot of weight with this crew since she’s the committee co-chair, as well as the head of the powerful Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee.  But at the end of the day, she’s still just one vote out of 12.

We might just need a real super hero to swoop in and remedy this situation.  A little Abby Cadabby dazzle from her magic want?  A visit from Super Grover? I only met them once, but they’re all about helping and cooperating, so I bet they’d pay a visit.  That uber-white committee could use some color and little sparkle, too.

Image via CNN

I know that my friends on the right will say these so-called negotiations that been been keeping people up at night are a two way street and that the Democrats will share an equal amount of blame if things aren’t sorted out in the next week.  But what Republicans don’t want us to focus on is that no matter how much President Obama is willing to compromise, it will never be enough.  As E.J. Dionne pointed out in his Washington Post op-ed on the current state of the debt crisis, Barack Obama has given Boehner most of what he wants and that the President has done more than the Democratic share in giving up on certain tax increases.  And that’s still not enough, at least to those who are calling the Republican shots.

Wall Street experts and those involved in global markets believe there’s no way the U.S. government will allow a default to happen.  The problem with that thinking is that they’re looking at the way things used to be, not at the way things are now with the Tea Party holding the Republicans hostage at every turn.  Even four years ago, there was still a hint of the ability to compromise.  Those days are gone, as extreme conservatives have found their voice and their platform in the Tea Party.

The one thing all those experts are missing is this — there are too many conservatives with Tea Party backers on Capitol Hill who want a default, regardless of what it will do to the global economy or to their own constituents’ livelihoods and futures.  They want a default.

That’s right. I’ll say it again.

They want America to default, throw the world economy into a meltdown and make things harder for Americans.  Because in about 16 months, they believe that will ensure a Republican victory that will send Obama back to Chicago and their candidate into the White House.

If Republicans can pin a default on President Obama and use their magic Teflon shield to keep the fallout from sticking to them, no matter how much they actually had to do with creating the current fiscal drama during the eight years they all voted for spending increases and tax cuts under George W. Bush, they KNOW they can win back the White House in 2012.

And that’s pretty much all they care about.  Mitch McConnell made that clear months ago — getting rid of our first African-American president is pretty much job number one for them and they don’t care what the stakes are to make it happen, even if it means having their own constituents and all their constituents’ kids suffer to make it happen.

There is one thing you can do if we default and global economic markets go into a free fall.  Primary elections for Congress are less than a year away.  Instead of spending that extra money on a latte today (and tomorrow and the next day), take that pocket cash and give it to a candidate who will take your economic future seriously instead of backing the ones who’ve made it abundantly clear that they don’t care about your future. The more of us who dig into our pockets and give to the candidates who will really listen to us, the better chance we have of never seeing this political childishness again.

1. A dictionary. I know — pretty basic, especially if you’re not headed off to college.  But it’s clear that no one on Capitol Hill knows what the word “compromise” means, because last time I checked it wasn’t a one-way street.  I think the lot of them from John Boehner to President Obama could benefit from spending a little time with the “C” words — not just “compromise,” but “capitulation” and “charity,” as well.

2. A calculator. I think there’s some crazy new math going on in the halls on Congress.  As the mom of a fifth-grader, I know how confusing the new, new math can be.  Even adding and subtracting is harder than it used to be, so I’m assuming that’s why the Republicans don’t understand that you can’t fix the budget deficit by going $700 billion into the hole.

3. A copy of Gray’s Anatomy. Because I think a lot of people are looking for their backbone and can’t find it, so maybe an anatomy refresher course on anatomy would help.

4. A field trip to the farm. Our lawmakers have a major problem — they are so far removed from how real people live, that they think we’re all going to be thrilled to keep our “tax cuts,” even if it means throwing a huge segment of Americans under the financial bus.  So I’m inviting them to spend a couple of days with my parents at the farm!  They are semi-retired, but have to work hard to make ends meet and juggle the complexities of getting the health care coverage they need.  Now, our Washington, D.C. guests won’t be getting any fancy accommodations or luxury dining experiences, but they will learn first-hand how real people pinch pennies when putting food on the table (think pasta or stretching a half pound of cheese further than Mickey Mouse ever could) or finding a way to keep an older home warm in the frigid winters of the Northeast.  You’d all better bring a sweater or two to wear under the blankies, because there’s no keeping the heat cranked up at night, even in December.

5. A good swift kick in the butt. Just for good measure.

What holiday “gifts” would you like to give our lawmakers?

As I’m getting getting ready for my Mom 2.0 panel today, I wanted to leave you with some good reading for the weekend.  What better way than to recommend a few Mothers of Intention?!

One of my favorite economy gurus is my fellow MOMocrat Cyn.  She has a great post this week entitled, 10 Things I Wish the Obama Administration Would Do to Fundamentally Improve the Ec0nomy. Trust me, she knows what she’s talking about.

Veronica from Viva la Feminista has a great post, Judge Resigns Over Bias Against Domestic Violence Survivors. Don’t even get me started on this one.

Julie at The Mom Slant weighs in with her take on the current state of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell.  She’s been in the military, so she knows what she’s talking about.

And Katie at mamapundit has concerns about Kleenex’s “mom” campaign.  She thinks it’s a little creepy.  I have to agree.

I’m sure I’ll come back with the names of some new Mothers of Intention after this weekend!

****************************

Even though I worked at the Securities and Exchange Commission for a number of years, trying to explain things like derivatives was never my strong suit. I got the whole concept of futures trading when I took my Agricultural Law class in law school (my farmer dad was VERY proud when I aced that puppy!), so I had an inkling about what they were, but, fortunately, I was never called on to actually explain the intricacies of how they work.

But one thing I knew was this — there is a certain amount of financial mumbo-jumbo involved when you have to derive something from another thing. Things get murky when you’re not talking about simply buying or selling something like a stock or a commodity.

There is an amazing chronological tutorial in the Washington Post about how we got in the mess we’re in now that everyone should read. In case you’re strapped for time, here’s the PunditMom synopsis:

1. In the late 1990s, Former Commodity Futures Trading Commission Chief Brooksley Born (the “girl”) tried to convince the male heads of the SEC, the Federal Reserve and the Treasury Department that it was essential that the government keep strict oversight on derivatives trading.

2. Born was a career attorney with lots of expertise in this area of the law. Former SEC chair Arthur Levitt was the former chair of the American Stock Exchange. Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan has served in many large corporate boards, including J.P. Morgan. Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin was formerly with Goldman Sachs.

3. The “boys” kept pushing for what they called voluntary regulation and compliance over derivatives trading (which would eventually lead to lax regulation on mortgage-backed securities) while Born advocated for actively enforcing the regulations on the books, especially for financial instruments that were a little out of the ordinary.

4. Born lost.

5. Some existing regulations were taken apart to benefit the derivatives indutry. The Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act was passed, taking down the walls separating commercial and investment banking.

6. Levitt and others now think they might have been wrong and that their actions may have contributed to the current fiscal crisis.

Ya’ think?

So, the moral of the story? Next time, listen to “the girl.”

***************************************

Think they’re ready to listen to Elizabeth Warren yet?

Postscript: The  National Women’s Law Center and I must have been channeling the same thoughts today.  I just came across this post at their site, Womenstake, about a Frontline show airing Tuesday night about this very topic!  The show, entitled The Warning features an interview with Brooksley Born about how her economic warnings went unheeded.

There’s still a pretty big elephant in the room that many have been ignoring when it comes to this topic –how families, and children in particular, are struggling to stay afloat and stay together until their financial fortunes turn. But that’s changed with the launch of the Children of the Recession series by Katie Couric at the CBS Evening News. I was lucky enough to participate in a conference call with many other bloggers, mostly from the SVMoms group, to talk with Katie and her producers about how this project came about, how they decided what stories to cover and to ask for our input on future story ideas for this ongoing series.

Katie told us that CBS reporters have found that emergency rooms around the country are seeing an increase in cases of abuse and neglect, families are buying less expensive foods for their tables — cheaper food often means more fattening food which isn’t good for a country with too many obese children — and families with formerly stable jobs like professors and accountants becoming homeless. Those are just a few of the dire stories they are finding and reporting on that show the real impact of George Bush’s economic legacy.

These aren’t just stories for the sake of finding stories to fill air time. Katie and her producers are interested in telling them as a way to help make real change and to grow grassroots efforts to help families in need until they are back on their feet. Interestingly, Katie said she hasn’t felt this proud of her work in a long time and hopes that by beginning to tell the stories of families in crisis, that we can all take action to expose the problems with not only the economy, but also with systems that can’t handle the numbers of children who need help.

Katie acknowledged that CBS (most of the network’s news shows are doing stories for the series) needs to stay committed and keep working on Children of the Recession if they are truly going to have a positive impact. By the way she and her team sounded on the phone, I think that’s a commitment they’re going to keep.

Of course, it would have been nice to be able to have this kind of blogger chat with Katie in person like we did about a year ago, but it was fascinating that she would take the time to pick our brains about what’s going on in our communities and to see how her team could incorporate that into their coverage.

Have any stories or anecdotes you think she should know about? Or programs or efforts that are helping people in your communities? Let me know in a comment and I’ll E-mail them to her producers! If some blogger ideas help create a news story that changes things for just one family, that would be a good day’s work.

The economic stimulus package that we’re all hoping will save our financial health is based on an outdated premise. This idea of focusing on “shovel ready” jobs and professions not particularly female friendly, like helping out the guys on Wall Street, may sound like a good quick fix, but I have to ask two questions – do we really need all the shovel ready stuff and who is the stimpak really going to benefit in the years to come?

Realistically and traditionally many of those jobs will go to male workers. I have to wonder, has that entered President Obama’s mind? When all the economic policy wonks were gathered to create this supposed miracle plan, was there any discussion about how to stimulate the economy by making sure that the equally important jobs traditionally held by women – ones that are increasingly being performed on flex schedules – see some of that stimulus? Where are the tax incentives and credits to keep women, who are disproportionately responsible for family and caregiving obligations, in their jobs?

As pointed out by Joan Williams, Director of the Center for WorkLife Law at UC Hastings, the ideas behind the money going to the stimpak are straight out of the 1950s. They are based on the premise that the ideal employee is one who is always unquestioningly available to his employer, not burdened by the need to be home to care and feed children.

If Barack Obama had really wanted to do something significant for those of us who put him in office, he would focus more on how to help women workers in the stimulus package. The Council on Women and Girls is a nice start, but we need more.

This IS the future. We don’t have the time to have a people sit around and ponder the intellectual. We need the practical. Now.

As Williams reminds us in her post at MomsRising, 46% of the American workforce is women and 81% of women have children by the time they are 44. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out if the economy is really going to be saved, the answer is not going to come from throwing money at construction projects, no matter how much our infrastructure needs them. It’s going to take more – we need a real commitment to finding ways to make things work for women in the workforce.

It’s just not happening at the moment. The Washington Post reported recently that women – read: mothers – who have been helping to support their families and keeping their families running because they had the opportunity to work either part-time or flex-time are the ones being laid off first because employers view them as extra costs. Employers are cutting “perks” like telecommuting because it’s perceived by those still stuck in the generation of June Cleaver that a real employee comes to an office and sits in that space for a certain period of time, being monitored for face time and not just productivity.

One small piece of good news is that the stimpak will help women in terms of how unemployment benefits are doled out, but that’s only temporary help. There is some help to provide additional funds to community health centers that provide services for women and children, as well as money for programs to prevent teacher layoffs, which would help women more than men. But what would a stimulus package look like if we invested in human infrastructure in the way we do with roads and bridges?

In reality, if more was invested in creating and supporting these programs, money would be saved and employees would be more productive – less time and money would be spent commuting and would provide more flexibility to juggle work and family obligations, keeping people employed and productive.

So how do we get President Obama to shift focus? I say it’s time to enlist Michelle Obama on this one! I know she’s busy with the mom-in-chief thing and getting the victory garden ready, but she said working families would be one of her projects and now is the time for her to weigh in. I know the GOP is getting itself all riled up because they fear Michelle becoming the next Hillary, but we need a voice in the White House and the administration who knows what it’s like to do the work/life balancing act.

I worry that even though this seems plain, that nothing will change from an institutional standpoint until those who are old enough to remember Wally and the Beaver (and those who are afraid of challenging them) are out.

Isn’t it long past due for our view of what jobs are worthy of national stimulus should change? My nine-year-old already equates work with getting in a car, going to the office and not getting home until dinner as the one that is deserving of her patience. If some more attention was paid to my work world –from the home computer, crafted carefully around a third-grader’s school and activity calendar so I can work and not have to pay a nanny – and it was considered by the stimpak gurus as worthy of investment, there could be some real economic stimulus on the horizon.

Cross-posted from BlogHer where PunditMom, aka Joanne Bamberger, is a Contributing Editor for News & Politics.

Now that her husband Bernie Madoff is in jail waiting to find out how many more years he’ll spend there (not the minimum security, country club kind, I hope), the focus is now on how much money the feds will ever be able to get back for the victims of his massive fraud. The most logical place to start is with the obvious assets — those that Bernie claims should be left in the hands of his wife, Ruth.

There’s been a lot of speculation about whether Ruth Madoff did or didn’t know what a big crook her husband was. And I’m sure the SEC and criminal prosecutors are trying to figure out if she had enough of a role in his scheme that she ought to be modeling the classy orange jumpsuit, as well.

But that question almost doesn’t matter for investors at this point. The bigger concern is whether the $70 million in cash and assets she’s sitting on is legitimately hers or whether there was a fraudulent transfer of assets from Bernie. (I just love when I still get to talk all SEC legal like!)

Ruth was employed by Bernie’s company, so she probably got some salary, though odds are that was from stolen money, and she did write a cookbook a few years back (or did she?). But would that give her a nest egg big enough to have four homes, millions in jewels and a bank account hefty enough to do some serious damage at Barney’s for years to come?

Doubtful.

The only question that’s really important now is whether the things she claims are hers and hers alone were purchased with money from the fraud, making them fair game to be disgorged (yeah, I’m going all SEC again) to give at least a little back to Madoff’s victims. Ruth did look a tad guilty when she was caught sending some of that jewelry and a few expensive watches out of the country right before her hubby was arrested. Can you say trying to hide the assets long enough to sell them and hide the cash?

So it’s pretty likely she’s going to need some tips to get along in this new economy. My guess is that she hasn’t had to think about economizing for a couple of decades, but the time for her to get in that mode is approaching fast.

I’ve been thinking it’s time for me to go back to my economizing ways — I’m a coupon clipper and dollar store shopper from way back, but I had let those more frugal ways slip in recent years as I was feeling more flush. Now, with the state of today’s economy, I have to flush those ways and go back to what I learned at my mother’s knee. I’m happy to share a few of those tips with Ruth Madoff if she wants because unless she’s got a stash in a cookie jar, she’s going to need a little pin money. Soon.

As a recovering attorney, I know full well people break contracts every day — that’s why lawyers have jobs! It’s not a question of whether you can break the deal or not, it’s a matter of whether one is prepared to live with the consequences of breaching a contract. So if AIG just said, ‘We know we agreed under other circumstances that we’d pay big bonuses, but we’re not paying because things are drastically different,’ what then?

Poor AIG says it has no alternative. Woe to the insurance giant. It’s stuck.

Or they’re crying wolf.

They’re worried about keeping the “best and the brightest?” Well, if the purported best and the brightest got us into our economic mess, maybe we’d all be better off if AIG and the other financial corporations let them go. And if they don’t get their millions, what are they going to do, quit? It’s not like there are tons of jobs out there at the moment. 600,000 people are losing their jobs every month and I don’t think the financial sector is really in a hiring mode at the moment.

And if they don’t pay the bonuses, those employees have something they can do — they can renegotiate or they can sue AIG! I am SO not worried about whether there will be a run on employees suing AIG if they don’t get their bonuses. Is there really a jury in the country that would side with them? Is there an attorney in the land who would take on those cases? Maybe one, but he’s a smidge busy with Bernie Madoff.

And there are plenty of other sectors where employers are saying if employees want to keep their paycheck and health benefits, they need to take a salary cut. So, in light of all that, what is the government afraid of if it pushes AIG to make the same kind of decision many other employers are, especially since they’re doing it with our money?!

I wish I had the real answer to that question. Something just doesn’t feel right. President Obama’s person was on the Sunday talk shows claiming that the fundamentals of our economy are sound and we ought to be buying cars. Larry Summers was almost speechless when asked why AIG and the other banks can’t give us the details of where the money has gone. When was the last time you saw Larry Summers speechless?

I have absolutely no confidence that anyone is telling the real story when it comes to fixing the economy, whether it’s our new administration or the corrupt financiers who made their deals with the devil and now want the rest of us to tell Beelzebub that they didn’t really mean to sell their souls AND ours with crazy loans and credit default swaps that are the equivalent of gambling.

The answer to the problem at the moment is simple — the government tells lenders and the likes of AIG that if they took bailout money they can’t pay bonuses to people. Period.

Why is Uncle Sam so afraid of such an easy solution?

Really. I’m just kind of geeky that way. Last night as I was trying to keep my eyes open and pretend to be an engaged and attentive wife, it was hard to stay “off the grid” so I could know what was going on in the world.

Seriously, John Boehner is getting ready to let loose with more virtiole on the budget! The Obamas are struggling with those important pet decisions! How can I unplug from such breaking news?

Right. Signing off now.