The so-called “Super Committee” — aka the United States Congress Joint Select Committee on Deficit Reduction — has been at work for the last three months, trying to”fix” our economic woes.  Remember when we were staring into the economic abyss back in August, and Congress finally agreed to raise the debt ceiling so America wouldn’t default on its financial obligations and tank the global economy?  I know it was the end of summer vacation, but somehow a “Super Committee” was formed that was supposed to seriously, and in a bipartisan way, develop a plan to put the economy on a better road.

I’ll stop for a minute while you finish laughing or cleaning up the Diet Coke you just spit all over your keyboard.

So here we are, about a day before both sides cry “uncle” on this effort, with automatic spending cuts ready to go into effect that will begin the process of slashing $1.2 trillion dollars from the budget — cuts that neither side wants.

So how did we get here?

Sometime in the last couple of decades of super-partisan politics, we’ve all lost the ability to compromise.  But I know some women who understand what that word means.  So for lack of any better suggestions coming from Capitol Hill, some of my friends weighed in on the question:

If I had been on the Super Committee, I would have …   And their answers?

– Voted for Congress to work for minimum wage.

– Probably had a screaming hissy fit wherein I told Republicans that supply-side economics is a myth and to stop pretending it’s a policy that works.

– Begun with a history book set alongside all that economic theory.

– Challenged the validity of said Super Committee.

– Worn a cape.

– Lit the Bat Signal.

–Told the rest of the committee to stop acting like spoiled children having a sibling spat and start acting like adults who’ve been charged with the very serious job of planning an entire nation’s financial future. Taken the rest of the committee on a field trip to visit some of the 1 in 5 Americans now on food stamps who are waiting on Congress to offer some solution.  Locked the rest of the committee together in a small room with a few pens, some papers and an audiobook of A Christmas Carol on endless loop and told them they can’t come out until they have a solution.

– Looked more at Senator Toomey’s plan.  I think it was ridiculous to dismiss it out of hand.  I think Grover Norquist has paralyzed the GOP with his silly pledge and I think the Dems need to get beyond just saying no to extending existing cuts.  Bottom line: compromise.  And I still would have angled for a cape.

– Lined up prominent conservative leaders of faith to say, “It’s OK to raise taxes on the wealthy if it fulfills our obligation to look out for the poor.”  Seriously, does anyone know what faith leaders’ positions are on this?  I haven’t seen much about it.

– Subpoenaed “Cookie Monster” from OccupySesameStreet to explain the economic crisis in simple terms, since clearly the more complex explanations are over their heads.

–Solved the F’ing problem.

– Used more jazz hands.

– Used more cowbell.

– Wished that Sarah Palin had announced her presidential candidacy because I really believe she would have locked them in a room with only peanut butter sandwiches and cold cereal and said, “You solve the problem and figure out a way to compromise or you’re not coming out for Thanksgiving or Christmas and then you can figure out how to answer to your wives, husbands, children and grandchildren. Now grow up boys and girls!!”

Those responses all came within just a few minutes of asking the question.  Even with some humor, it doesn’t take much to sense the level of frustration people on both sides of this debate are feeling.

On a slightly more serious note, Kelly Phillips Erb points out at her Tax Girl blog at Forbes that all this hand-wringing over the Super Committee deadline is just an act.  Yes, Congress instituted a deadline, but they can change it.  And I’m willing to bet my slice of Thanksgiving pumpkin pie that’s exactly what’s going to happen in the next 24 hours.

As for Grover Norquist, he’d better be looking for a secure, undisclosed location for his Thanksgiving celebration.  He may think he’s got everybody right where he wants them, but we’re at the point where his Republican “allies” are going to turn on him.   They may have signed his no new taxes “oath,” but in the end, when that bit of political theatrics stops working with voters who can’t even afford to buy a turkey this holiday season, those oath-takers will be blaming him and making him the fall guy for the GOP’s role in this mess.

Image via Joanne Bamberger.  All rights reserved.

The release of Walmart’s study for the 2010 election entitled, “Who Can Win the Walmart Mom?” takes a look at not just mothers, but also who fits the demographic mold of a typical Walmart customer and what those women are concerned about when deciding how to vote in November.  While much of what’s in the report didn’t come as any big surprise to me, there were some fascinating tidbits that those running for office should definitely pay attention to — because you know what happens when you don’t listen to your mom!

It turns out that most of the women polled for this Walmart report voted for Barack Obama in 2008 and voted Democratic for other candidates then, as well.  For 2010, however, a majority of them are unhappy with Congress, are skeptical about health care reform legislation and are leaning toward voting Republican, even though they usually vote blue.

The report paints a picture of who the typical Walmart mom is — she’s a white, educated woman under 45 with a couple of kids under 18 with a middle-class income, but who thinks her family is really a lower class family when it comes to finances.  Of course, there are large numbers of women they polled who don’t fit that description, but the majority of those polled did.

And what is that women are focused on for the 2010 mid-term elections?

Not a big surprise, since that’s been the story at least since Bill Clinton ran for president.  Lots of reporters are all abuzz about this all new, very shiny theory that will shed light on how things turn out in November!  But here’s the thing — people love to put labels on women who are mothers to try to distill us into groups that can be addressed in tidy little soundbites.  Those who want our attention and our votes do that at their own peril.

One thing I found interesting about the event I was invited to to hear about this study was this  — the majority of those in the room were middle-aged white men.  Some of them chuckled and rolled their eyes at the thought of these mothers worrying about anything other than putting food on the table and saving money.  The women on the panel — a representative from Walmart and Margie Omero, the Democratic pollster who worked on the study, didn’t think it was any laughing matter to review and analyze the voting patterns, habits and concerns of these women.  As they spoke, it was clear they took the information seriously.

So are Walmart moms the new soccer moms?  Politicians, pollsters and officials would be a lot better off if they stopped trying to put a label on us (of course, this one isn’t even really new – it’s been around since 2008)  and actually focused on what we’re concerned about in addition to the economy.  Just because the economy is at the top of our list, doesn’t mean we don’t have a lot of other interests on our plate, as well.

When all those people can stop seeing women who are mothers as nothing more than a one-dimensional stereotype that can be dissected for political purposes, they’ll get a lot more involvement and a lot more of our votes, regardless of which side of the political aisle we’re on!  Because the thing is this — no one likes being labeled, especially when a label becomes shorthand for something akin to a backhanded compliment.

For the politicians, pollsters and, yes, even businesses like Walmart, I’ll just say we are paying attention to all the things that concern us, even when we’re pinching pennies, juggling our work lives and businesses, trying to decide how we can afford health care for our kids and driving to soccer practice.

And by the way, where were the real Walmart moms?  I’d love to hear them weigh in!

First, I *heart* Elizabeth Warren:

But I hate that damn groundhog.  Apparently he’s gone digital, though.

Tom Shales is wrong. Barbara Walters and Roger Ailes do not make a good couple.

I hate to break it to James O’Keefe, but the stars of investigative journalism were the real reporters,  Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein, not the guys who broke into the Watergate hotel.  I think James got his history a little confused when he planned his “journalistic” trip to Senator Landrieau’s office.  And James, I don’t think you get to call committing a felony a “political prank.”

And the Harold Ford flip-flop dance continues.

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

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.

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.

But the name of the Ledbetter bill is a tad misleading. Hopefully it puts us on the path to fair pay, but the new Ledbetter law is essentially a revised statute of limitations for wage discrimination claims. It doesn’t make employers pay people equally.

One step forward.

When the House of Representatives passed Ledbetter, it also gave the thumbs up to the Paycheck Fairness Act which would update the Equal Pay Act and prohibit employers from paying people less based on gender or race. Interestingly, the Senate refused to vote on that and who knows what committee in-box that will end up languishing in. So why didn’t the Senate vote on that as well?

One step back.

Now, as the economic stimulus package is on its way to the White House for passage, a little piece got taken out at request of President Obama because of GOP push back and House Minority Leader John Boehner’s question about how birth control and reproductive rights could possibly have anything to do with economic stimulus.

To Congressman Boehner, I say, “DUH!”

I know they’re not really that stupid. It’s not rocket science to figure out that if women have access to birth control, fewer kids means making families’ lives more affordable and manageable, saving the government money in other programs. Giving low income women access to preventative care like Pap tests and other screening tests detect disease early, making it more treatable, keeping women in the workforce to support their families.

I was taken aback when President Obama said that now isn’t the “right” time to increase funding so all women have access to the kind of services that reduce the burden on state and federal programs AND keep women working TO. STIMULATE. THE. ECONOMY.

If not now, President Obama, when IS the right time? You might be able to convince me, if you tell me what your timing is.

Two steps back.

I know it’s hard for some guys to get their heads around the reality that reproductive health care has a direct link to our economy’s well-being. It’s even harder for me to understand this view when so many of those who oppose it, or want to delay it, are fathers of daughters.

Barack, don’t keep us waiting. You’ve got some goodwill saved up in the bank. But we expect you to be an advocate for the Paycheck Fairness Act and for increased health services for low income women. It’s only going to be a few years until Malia and Sasha will be directly impacted by how women are paid in this country and face the realities of how many mothers are treated when it comes to getting the health care they need to keep our economy going.

As I sometimes say to PunditGirl, please don’t make me ask again.

Lots of people, including myself, wondered if Caroline Kennedy had the experience to be New York Senator. Cokie Roberts made a good point on Sunday about that standard not being applied to Michael Bloomberg and so many other men.

There’s lots of buzz about President Obama’s new economic plan. But my question is this — where are the jobs for the women going to come from? For better or worse, all those infrastructure jobs will go to men. Help us out here a little, Barack.

Can you say Senator Oprah?

This week, I’m preparing for the panel I’ll be moderating at the Feminism 2.0 conference in Washington, D.C. My panel is entitled, Breaking the “Waves”: Moms Coming Together for Equality. You’ll recognize a couple of my pals who will be on the panel, so if you’re in town, please come!

And Gung Hay Fat Choy!

President-elect Obama has his financial gurus all lined up, but plenty of people have been skeptical that they’ll approach things any differently than the current group has for the last eight years. Giving Larry Summers and Timothy Geithner major roles isn’t exactly instilling the most confidence for those who are hoping for a new economic agenda because it gives the appearance of more of the same. Kady at The Wonkess has a few suggestions for other economic types she thinks the President-elect ought to be listening to. How can it be a bad thing to throw some additional talented and experienced voices into the mix when we’re facing something no one has ever had to deal with in our lifetimes?

At this stage of the game, though, with the auto bailout plan in collapse and a Congress that can’t seem to make up its mind about how to keep hard-earned savings safe from further decline, it may be time for Barack Obama to come up with an even bolder plan, but one that doesn’t neglect the day-to-day issues.

I believe that Obama will do his best to turn this country around. But that’s going to take time — time that a lot of families don’t have. So what are the rest of us going to do in the meantime?

One thing is clear — it’s time to take more control over our finances to the extent that we can. i am bossy has taken the lead by starting her own daily Poverty Party blog to show us the way to dig out of the mess that, on some level, we have created for ourselves:

You see: Bossy and her family are broke and in debt. Many times in the past Bossy has grown serious about limiting her purchases to cash, and keeping a running record of transaction amounts throughout the day, and other tricks learned on Oprah. But that dedication only lasts a few weeks before Bossy caves-in to convenience. And boots.

But every indication suggests that right now is the time to truly reign-in spending and whittle down debt, where indication equals the breadline Bossy is standing in due to the collapsed economy.

BlogHer Contributing Editor Suzanne Reisman is excited about Obama’s plans to focus on our nation’s infrastructure and his desire to create new jobs. But she’s also worried that, as good as his plan might be, it leaves women wage earners out in the cold:

For all my excitement about investing in infrastructure (which I still think is vital), I hadn’t really considered what that meant in terms of creating a gender disparity in the new jobs. Then … I had lunch with some awesome women from the American Association of University Women, and they kindly (but firmly) plucked me off of Construction Cloud 9 with two facts: 1. Female headed households saw a stiffer decrease in income than those headed by men; and 2. Women make up less than 3% of the construction workforce. Oh. Shit.

I think it’s safe to say that Obama and his economic team have the big picture in their sights, but according to Katrina vanden Heuvel of The Nation, Obama may have to entirely rethink his current economic plan from the one he presented in the campaign and take even bolder steps to keep things running, especially in a time when, she notes, that 37 million Americans live below the poverty level:

What’s even more ominous about the current recession as compared to those of the past, the [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities] report warns, is the truly depleted state of the safety net: “Because this recession is likely to be deep and the government safety net for very poor families who lack jobs has weakened significantly in recent years, increases in deep poverty in this recession are likely to be severe.”

Protecting home ownership? I’m keeping my fingers crossed on that one.

Tax cuts for working families? Not likely now.

Work/family balance with increased paid leave? I’d be surprised if that gets attention anytime in the near future.

Catching up on his campaign sleep deprivation before January 20? Not likely as Obama is going to have to be willing to approach our economy’s failing health with the financial equivalents of tourniquets and transfusions.

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

Have I got a deal for you!

The CEOs of the big three automakers keep asking for billions of dollars in handouts and “emergency bridge loans” from you, well, actually from me and about 300 million others like me. I can see both sides of the bail-out vs. Chapter 11 bankruptcy argument, so I’m not trying to make light of the bad situation that thousands upon thousands of Americans would be put in if they lose their jobs because Detroit manufacturing goes under.

But while you’ve got that big ol’ checkbook out, I just want to put in a few words for my parents — Grammy & Grandpa PunditMom!

No, they’re not Wall Street titans or tone-deaf executives — they’re small family farmers. And even though they don’t say this and they don’t complain, they could really use a little help making ends meet.

I understand there’s a whole philosophical thing about whether the government should come to the aid of big businesses — the ones that have gotten “too big to fail.”

But I’d like to say a word about the families and businesses around the country that are too small to fail. That’s right, too small to fail.

If you save the big guys but all the little businesses go under, who’s going to be there to buy the products and save the money? Someone once told me that I was so vigilant in getting reimbursed for business expenses that I could turn $1 into $1.05! Lots of people, including my parents, are like that, but I’m afraid that the extra nickel isn’t going to go very far anymore.

You’re all very concerned, as you should be, about the state of our economy and how to keep us from descending into another Great Depression. But you’re a little too busy patting yourselves on the backs for staying in Washington, D.C. in December so those auto CEOs could test drive their hybrids halfway across the country.

The stock market tanked in 1929. The depths of the Great Depression didn’t come until 1933. It took that long for the bad things that happened to the big guys to trickle down to the rest of the country.

So, as my parents are in semi-retirement, but still working a couple jobs to make sure they have health insurance and something extra for on the table at the holidays, don’t be so focused on the guys in the suits who are giving you their best pity-party spiel.

After the Wall Street guys and the Detroit executives get their inevitable handouts, please see if you’ve got a little something left over for my parents and others like them, especially since they’re the ones who are helping to put the food on your holiday dinner tables, too. And try not to make it one of those stimulus things that are really just early tax refunds in disguise. Something real would be nice that would give a boost to families, both financially and emotionally.

I’m sure that’s something your constituents could get behind, especially as they’re trying to finance their own holiday gatherings with all the trimmings while still trying to have a little something left to tide them over to the New Year.

Thanks so much in advance. I know my parents would thank you, too.

Sincerely yours,

PunditMom