Budgeting 101

The big news this week is all about the federal budget debate also known as the Shutdown Showdown. We are about halfway through the fiscal 2011 year, and the federal government is still lacking a budget. Of course this makes absolutely no sense, but this is the twilight zone in which Americans currently live. We are waiting to see if our elected officials can be grown ups and reach a compromise. If the government does shut down on Friday, I lay the blame mostly at the feet of Republicans. However, Democrats do share some of the blame for this debacle as I will share later. First, I want to give a short lesson in budgeting 101 to our “brilliant” lawmakers. Now, a budget at its core is based on two things: 1.) Income 2.) Expenses. If you bring home $1000 a month after taxes (and yes, you do have to pay taxes, its non-negotiable), you have a $1000 to spend (I know this is really simplistic, but apparently some people don’t understand how this works). Let’s say that your mortgage is $400, car note is $200, utilities are $200, daycare is $100, food is $100, gas for the car is $100, car and house insurance is $150, cable is $100, and your cell phone is $50. These are just your monthly expenses; I haven’t addressed any emergency needs that may arise. Now, from my calculation your monthly expenses add up to $1,400 per month, but you only bring home $1000. You are essentially over budget by $400 every month. At this point, you must figure out how balance your budget to survive. First, you look at the things that you may be able to cut. Well, you can live without cable and the cell phone; therefore, they are definitely out. You have saved $150 with that move alone, but you still have $250 to go before you break even. You may be able to start taking public transportation to work, but you still need your car to take the kids around and grocery shop so let’s say you are able to save $50 on gas. You are now down to $200. I guess the next thing to go could possibly be the insurance. After all, you are only going to need that if you are in an accident or some tragedy befalls your home; $150 saved (if you make this decision, you may want to consider taking up prayer as your new insurance policy). You still have to cut $50 from somewhere, and you are left with the mortgage, car note, utilities, daycare, and food. Which one of these things is nonessential? I suppose you could get rid of daycare, but you live in a city far from family and friends. More importantly, this is the only daycare that has any room in the whole town. Food for your children is a must as well as electricity, water, and sewage. The car note and/or mortgage could be refinanced, but, unfortunately for you, there isn’t a bank willing to work with you on either of these. You have to now start looking at possible ways to increase your INCOME. You could take on a second job, work overtime, or start a side business that allows you to make more money. This would not only help you balance your budget but also provide a safety net in case of emergencies. My point with this whole scenario is that Republicans keep insisting that Americans are making the hard cuts at home, and we expect them to make the hard cuts in Washington. This is true, but we are also realistic. Americans understand that at some point, there is no more fat that can be cut, and you have to start seriously looking at revenues. Republicans (well, to be fair, Tea Partiers) had no problem voting to extend the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans last December. Tax cuts which, if lapsed, would have brought in much needed revenue to the Treasury. Now, these same Republicans are trying to cut essential programs to balance the budget because spending is out of control. Well, I call bull crap on that. It is not ok that the wealthiest Americans in this country are becoming richer while Republicans in Congress try to balance the budget on the backs of the poorest Americans. Spending does need to be curtailed, but we also have a serious income issue in this country that needs to be addressed sooner rather than later. I am not letting Democrats totally off the hook here either. If Democrats would have stuck together last year before the midterm elections, they could have passed the 2011 budget in 2010. Republicans threatened a filibuster if the budget was brought up, and Democrats should have let them filibuster to their hearts delight while the cameras were rolling. Thus, the American people could see the legislative process up close and personal. We may have been given a preview of the nonsense that is going on today. I have to always go back to the same point when it comes to Democrats. Democrats do not know how sell themselves or their ideas, and they don’t know how to stick together. It is a fatal and fundamental flaw which led to the shellacking at the polls in November 2010. Now, look at the mess this country is in due to the influx of Tea Partiers into Washington. Although our Democratic and Republican leaders have much to answer for in terms of this budget debate, the American people are also responsible for this mess. In 2010, as voters, we just became detached. There is no good reason why the likes of Michelle Bachmann, a woman who doesn’t even know where Concord and Lexington are on the map, should be in Congress. We as voters should be ashamed. Whether you are Democrat or Republican, if you didn’t vote in 2010, you hold some responsibility for this mess. If you are Republican and you didn’t vote in 2010, you may have allowed a potentially good Republican who understands the art of compromise to be knocked out of the race during the primary. I think it’s pretty obvious to Democrats who didn’t vote your role in all of this. The bottom line is we have to get better about being informed on the issues, and we have to vote. There is no better time to start than the present.

It's Ladies Rights

Did you see the President’s speech on Libya on Monday? If you didn’t, you missed a fairly good speech which addressed all of the issues I outlined in my previous blog. I still believe this president comes across as too detached when on television. However, I understand that he has more of a cool demeanor, and I ultimately appreciate this cool head being in the oval office. Although the president makes the final decision in matters such as Libya, he also listens to several advisors. Many news outlets have been reporting that the women in his circle were major players in the decision to provide a no fly zone for Libya. Those “women” were primarily Hilary R. Clinton and Susan E. Rice. It seemed almost ironic that these women would play such an integral role in the Libyan mission during Women’s History Month. It was only heightened by the images of President Obama answering questions regarding Libya while standing next to Brazil’s first female president, Dilma Rousseff. It served only to remind me that a woman’s influence should never be underestimated in any given circumstance. As Women’s History Month comes to a close, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention the passing of Elizabeth Taylor and Geraldine Ferraro. Both women are recognized as trailblazers of their time. During a time where the entertainment industry was ruled by men, Elizabeth Taylor was a celebrity before many understood the meaning of the word celebrity. She clearly loved marriage, but at the same time defied that notion that a woman must stay in an unhappy one. Most importantly, she was one of the first leading advocates for HIV awareness establishing the Elizabeth Taylor AIDS foundation in 1993. Geraldine Ferraro was the first woman vice-presidential candidate on a national party ticket in 1984 (yes, I know it’s a mouthful) paving the way for future politicians such as Nancy Pelosi, Hilary Clinton, Nikki Haley, and yes, even Sarah Palin. Although many people know about Ferraro’s candidacy, I’m not sure how many people know that her most important work was done on the ground fighting for justice for women. She served in the United States House of Representatives before her vice-presidential candidacy and fought for equal compensation for women in terms of wages, pensions, and retirement plans. In 1984, she sponsored the Women’s Equity Act which ended pension discrimination against women. As seen by the pending Wal-mart class action suit (more on this in a later blog), women are still fighting for equality in the workforce. Ultimately, we owe a great debt of gratitude to these women and countless others, and we, as women, should ask ourselves, are we doing enough to ensure that the work of these women wasn’t in vain? In that spirit, I want to end this posting with my thoughts on the Republican’s move to totally defund Planned Parenthood. First, we need to look at the facts. Planned Parenthood gets about a third of its money from the government. This would mean that two-thirds or the majority of its money comes from other sources. Second, there is a law in place that doesn’t allow Planned Parenthood to use federal funds for abortions. Third, the definition of pro-choice is someone who believes in the right of a woman to make her own choices when it comes to her body. It is not an automatic indicator that someone is for abortion. Those people would be pro-abortion. Now, I consider myself pro-choice and anti-abortion so I can sympathize with both groups when it comes to this issue. My personal belief is that abortion is wrong and life, indeed, does begin at conception. However, I will always respect the right of a woman or anyone to make her/his own medical and personal decisions. This would be my first quibble with many Republicans on this issue. Many Republicans, especially Tea Partiers, scream and holler about less government, or they don’t want the government in their business. If this is truly their belief, why do they want the government to restrict a woman’s personal choice? As stated earlier, federal funding cannot be used for abortions so I don’t understand the justification. My next issue involves the systematic stripping of funds for public programs for the economically disadvantaged particularly in the arena of education. Republicans want to defund Planned Parenthood at a time when this country is economically weak. It is already a challenge to support the scores of unwanted or neglected children in this country. Planned Parenthood actually works to live up to its name by providing contraception to disadvantaged communities. It is not ok for Republicans to literally scream bloody murder in one breath and in the next cut funding to the Pell Grant program, or food stamp program, or heating assistance program, or unemployment benefits, or a host of other social service programs. These programs help families for whom there are children that need care. You cannot be anti-abortion, anti-contraception, and anti-social services at the same time. The only way for this type of thinking to work is if a vast majority of upper middle class to wealthy Americans start adopting a whole lot of children and quick. Even then, you would still miss children who are in loving but poor families. My final and most important issue surrounding the defunding is that Planned Parenthood provides critical medical care for disadvantaged citizens, the majority of whom are women. I understand to a certain extent how anyone can make arguments to support my other two issues, but there is no argument that can be made to support this one. I want to know, where are the healthcare seeking patients of Planned Parenthood supposed to go? Will they go to the local emergency room where there visit will more than likely be paid by the taxpayer anyway? Will they seek help at state public health clinics that are already underfunded and overburdened? Or Will they simply not seek help at all or wait until it is too late? In spite of all these things, I know that this isn’t an intentional attack on the nation’s poorest women, but at times, I can’t help but think, it sure feels like one.