Arlen Specter and his Anti-trust Concerns

October 29, 2008 // 3 Comments »

Posted in money, politics

First things first, I have have to thank Andrew Norcross for sending me this link. The downside is that it fired me up again. The upside is that it fired me up again.

I had to do it again today. I didn’t want to but I had to do it. I had to send another letter to my favorite United States Senator. The one and only Arlen Specter.

Instead of fighting a bailout we don’t need or want and instead of taking the time to learn about actual needs of his constituents, Arlen Specter is taking the time to send a letter to the NFL.

That’s right.

You might be outraged that your tax dollars are going towards a bailout that doesn’t seem to help anyone but banks and auto makers but Arlen Specter wants you to know that he is outraged that the N.F.L. wants to air its games on its own network.

I don’t know about Arlen Specter but this suburban twenty something has bigger fish to fry than what channel you view your Sunday afternoon football games. I’m concerned with things like Social Security and why we continue to pay into a system that is falling apart. I’m concerned with things like college tuition costs and its long term impact on the American economy.

Perhaps I should be concerned with football.

It seems like Arlen Specter is more concerned with what his campaign contributors think than what the voters think.

Here’s what it comes down to: If you don’t keep the voter’s interests at heart, none of it matters. Sure you had more money for your last campaign but now you are failing the residents of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Will anyone of these people vote for Senator Specter next time?

I know this twenty something won’t.

Please take the time today to send a message to Senator Specter that this waste of time is no longer acceptable. Please let Senator Specter know that you are disappointed by his action. Please let Senator Specter know that you expect him to reevaluate his priorities as your elected representative.

I don’t care what state you live in, help Pennsylvania voters get the attention of Arlen Specter.

You can contact the Senator on his senate webpage. It will only take a few minutes of your time.

And as always…

My Letter to Senator Arlen Specter:

Dear Senator Specter,

After discovering the link below, I am very concerned as to how you are spending your time in office.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/30/sports/football/30specter.html?_r=2&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

As one of your constituents, I am not concerned about the NFL and what network they choose to air their games. As a consumer, I can choose to make arrangements to see those games or I can choose to follow another sport or league (perhaps the IWFL).

I am actually more concerned that Comcast has been able to block competitors such as Verizon from offering their products in places such as Bristol Township. Does that concern you?

I would much prefer you to spend your time stopping wasteful spending in Washington, protecting the Constitutional rights of your constituents (regardless of their age, gender, race or sexual orientation) and learning about how you can better meet the needs of your Gen Y constituents.

Kind Regards,
Mrs. Dorie A. Morgan

Also please note, I will be posting your response at my blog. If you or a member of your staff is interested in joining the discussion my blog can be found at http://www.dorieannmorgan.com

Life with Don

October 25, 2008 // 2 Comments »

Posted in challenges, choices, family life, home life, marriage, money, relationships

I keep finding posts and articles about Gen Y and moving back home stumble flash across my browser and I think it’s time I say something about it. Mostly in the form of a confession.
Brian and I have spent the first 18 months of our marriage living with my father-in-law, Don. I usually try to avoid saying it flat out but I know I’ve alluded to it in the past in both comments and posts.

My name is Dorie, I’m 26 and I’m a boomerang kid.

I moved back home follow graduation. Which was horrible. I am convinced that the only way possible for my mother and me to function as rational people is for us to live in different zip codes. Life post graduation in my childhood bedroom was mind numbingly horrible. We fought constantly, I tried to be drunk for as much of it as humanly possible and I was stuck. It’s a miracle anyone survived.

Then I met Brian, we decided to get married and I moved into his father’s house. Most women fear moving from their father’s house and directly into their husband’s house. Brian and I were flat broke and that wasn’t an option.

We spent the first six months on a futon on the floor of his high school bedroom. For the last year, we’ve actually had a bed to sleep on. It was by no means comfortable living but we did it.

Part of the weirdness comes from the fact that I run my late mother-in-law’s household. It’s her organizational systems that I maintain. I cook in her kitchen. I use her washer and dryer for the household’s laundry. It kind of feels like limbo. Because it is limbo.

So why did we do it?

1. Housing in Lower Bucks County is really expensive. A one bedroom apartment in the bad part of town will set you back at least eight hundred dollars a month. For about four hundred dollars more, we could get a mortgage. Since we were committed to the Philadelphia area, why rent when we could buy?

2. We could not afford to buy a house right away. We did not have enough money for a down payment. It took about a year for us to save enough money for a down payment. Had we been renting, we calculate it would have taken 3 to 4 years to save enough money.

3. We wanted a place we could stay rent free while we renovated a home. Brian is a carpenter. It made sense to get a handyman’s special.

4. Nine months before our wedding, Brian’s mom passed away. Moving was just too painful.

Now that our time in Brian’s childhood home is wrapping up, I catch myself reflecting on the time. There are a lot of pros and a lot of cons too.

Pro: It taught us how to fight. Having someone else in the house to hear it when we were disagreeing helped us to stay kind to each other. Because it’s one thing to have in-laws. It’s a whole different thing to have your spouse’s family hear your disagreements. The upside is that we’re pretty good with disagreeing without yelling.

Con: Sometimes you just want a good fight with no one listening. Sometimes I want to rant and rave like an absolute lunatic and not have my father-in-law listening to my insanity.

Pro: It’s broken down the typical “in-law” issues. Brian’s dad isn’t just “my father-in-law” but Don. He’s a real three dimensional person, not just someone to deal with at family functions. These living arrangements have connected me to Brian’s family in ways our marriage couldn’t do by itself.

Con: It makes it harder to be “Dorie” in terms other than “Brian and Dorie”. Limited living space a couple means that there is also limited space for me to still be home but alone. For the first 6 months, we were literally on top of each other because our “bed” was so small. We now live in two rooms but it can still be a challenge.

Pro: We didn’t have to buy what was available. We were able to be fussy about the house we purchased because we didn’t have to worry about when a lease would be up. We also were able to start our renovations without having live in construction or pay rent. It took a lot of pressure off.

Con: Sometimes it took a little too much pressure off us. To the point of becoming lazy. It becomes easier to say “no, I won’t work on the house today because it is raining” instead of saying “I have to move in a month, I have to get to work”.

Pro: We were able to save a ton of money. We were able to have money for a down payment for our home and still have money left over for renovations. I won’t say we are rolling in cash but we are able to get by today without too much panic.

Con: Sometimes it was really tempting to spend that money. Sometimes we were able to practice self control, other times we just couldn’t do it. While I may have loved coming home some days to random jewelry surprises (“Hello Sapphires, I love the way you look on me too”), it did not help our plan to put money aside.

Overall, living with Brian’s dad has been very good for us but I’m not sure I would recommend it to anyone else. If you do find yourself in a situation where you are married and living at home, set some ground rules first and get those rules in writing. Some questions you should ask:

1. Are we expected to pay rent? How much? What day should I give you money?
2. What household responsibilities are we responsible for?
3. What household errands are we responsible for?
4. What are your responsibilities are you response for as the home owner?
5. How will we handle the holiday seasons?
6. What are restrictions for having guests over?

Treat everything like it is a business arrangement. It may sound impersonal but it is a key part of maintaining a functioning family in an awkward situation.

And don’t forget to make an exit plan too!

Arlen Specter: If only we were grading by the pound

October 21, 2008 // 3 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

I received a response this morning from Senator Arlen Specter regarding my comment to him on October 16, 2008.

I will say that this time, the response was substantial. Over 3000 words. If I was a college professor who graded by the pound, this guy would get an “A” and wreck the curve”. Unfortunately for him, if I was a college professor, I would grade based on content. And unforunately for him, he failed to answer what I repeatedly identified as my most important question: What is he doing to help his Gen Y constituents?

Apparently a big ball of nothing.

I’ve posted his response below and the ironic portion can be found in bold. Its a tough read but eye-opening.  We need to let our politicians know that responses must be relevant and answer the questions posed to them.

A Final Response from Arlen Specter 

Dear Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for contacting my office regarding your concerns on higher education, as well as the economic rescue package. I appreciate your views on these matters.

The Higher Education Act authorizes Federal government student aid programs, provides assistance to higher education institutions, and offers support services to disadvantaged students to help increase their access to postsecondary education.

I have worked with my Senate colleagues in the 110th Congress to reauthorize the Higher Education Act and consider other legislation that aims to improve the accessibility and affordability of higher education. On July 31, 2008 I voted for the Conference Report on H.R. 4137, the College Opportunity and Affordability Act of 2008, which passed the Senate by a vote of 83-8 and was signed into law by the President on August 14, 2008. This bill reauthorizes the Higher Education Act of 1965 and includes additional provisions to help students prepare and pay for postsecondary education. Among the provisions in this bill are mandates on colleges and universities to enhance transparency of tuition information; stricter disclosure rules for student loan lenders; and a simplification of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid (FAFSA) form. The legislation also authorizes an increase in the annual Pell maximum grant award from $6,000 to $8,000 over 6 years.

Additionally, I supported H.R. 2669, the College Cost Reduction Act of 2007, which passed the Senate on September 7, 2007 by a vote of 79-12. This legislation reduces the federal government’s subsidies to student loan lenders and guarantee agencies in order to support increases in assistance for low-income students and reductions to student borrower fees. H.R. 2669 creates a new program for low-income, Pell-eligible students to be established in addition to the Pell grant program. These new “Promise” grants would essentially supplement discretionary Pell grants funding with mandatory funding. This legislation was signed into law by the President on September 27, 2007.

I have taken the lead on the Senate Labor, Health and Human Services and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for programs authorized by the Higher Education Act. Specifically, I have battled to increase the maximum award for Pell grants, the single largest source of grant aid for postsecondary education attendance funded by the Federal government. Today, the maximum discretionary Pell grant award is $4,241. Since FY96, the maximum discretionary award has risen $1,771, or 72%, from $2,470 to $4,241. Additional mandatory funding of $490 provided in the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 increases the total (discretionary and mandatory) maximum Pell grant award in FY08 to $4,731.

As either Chairman or Ranking Member of the LHHS Appropriations subcommittee, I have worked to secure funding for other programs that provide services and incentives to disadvantaged students, such as the GEAR UP and TRIO programs. GEAR UP provides tutoring, financial aid counseling and college scholarships to low-income students from the seventh grade through high school graduation. Since the program began in FY99, I have consistently supported increasing funding from the initial $120 million to $303 million in FY08, an increase of $183 million or 153%. In addition, I have advocated for support of the TRIO program, which provides student support services to participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation college students. Federal funding for the TRIO program has increased from $463 million in FY96 to $828 million in FY08, an increase of $365 million or 79%. I have been a strong advocate for our nation’s higher education system, and I will continue to do so throughout my tenure.

I reluctantly supported the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act because the failure of Congress to act would run the risk of dire consequences, including an economic downturn which could cause more foreclosures, jeopardize retirement accounts, and further restrict credit which is necessary for small businesses to operate. I am philosophically opposed to bailouts. I think that when you have Wall Street entrepreneurs who take big risks to make big profits and they go sour, they ought to sustain the loss themselves and not look to the government for a bailout which ends up in the laps of the taxpayers. However, I supported the plan to avoid economic disaster that would extend well beyond Wall Street.

If financiers knowingly overvalued assets on the books in order to lend more money, then fraud was committed and there will be repercussions. The same goes for individuals who engaged in predatory lending practices. The FBI has already begun investigations into major U.S. financial institutions whose collapse helped trigger this legislation. Moreover, the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has held hearings investigating the cause and effect of the AIG bailout, and the cause and effect of the Lehman Brothers bankruptcy. In the Senate, the Banking Committee as well as other appropriate committees, including the Judiciary Committee where I serve as Ranking Member, will continue to examine how this happened with an eye on holding those who led us to this point accountable.
From the outset, I cautioned against Congress’s rushing to judgment. When the initial proposal was made in mid-September, I wrote to Majority Leader Harry Reid and Republican Leader Mitch McConnell by letter dated September 21, 2008 urging we take the time necessary to get the legislation right. By letter dated September 23, 2008, I wrote to Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke asking a series of questions which have not yet been answered. Then by letter dated September 27, 2008, accompanied by a Senate floor statement, I made a series of suggestions to the executive and legislative negotiators. Again, there has been insufficient time for a reply. Copies of these letters are available on my website: http://specter.senate.gov.

Whenever we deviate from regular order which has been developed during more than 200 years of serving our country very well, we are on thin ice. On regular order, the legislative process customarily begins with a bill which members of Congress can study and analyze. After the legislation is in hand, there are hearings with proponents and opponents of the bill and an opportunity for members to examine, really cross examine, to get to the heart of the issues and alternatives. Regular order calls for a markup in the committee of jurisdiction going over the language line by line with an opportunity to make changes with votes on those proposed modifications. Then the committee files a report which is reviewed by members in advance of floor action where amendments can be offered and debate occurs. The action by each house is then subjected to further refinement by a conference committee which makes the presentment to the President for yet another line of review. The process used to finalize this legislation drastically shortcut regular order.

The legislation passed by the Senate is enormously improved over the first Paulson proposal. The $700 billion is not to be authorized immediately, but instead there are installments of $250 billion, $100 billion at the request of the president and $350 billion more subject to congressional objection, although the latter phase may be unconstitutional under INS v. Chadha, which requires following regular legislative process with passage by both houses and Presidential approval to overrule Presidential action and perhaps inferentially legislative conditions. For protection of the taxpayers, the proposal contains a provision that if the government does not regain its money after five years, the President would be required to submit a plan for compensating the Treasury “from entities benefiting from the programs.” While that provision is a far way from a guarantee or even assurances that such recovery legislation would be enacted, it gives some important comfort to the taxpayers’ position.

There are provisions for multiple layers of oversight including a Financial Stability Oversight Board that will meet monthly to oversee the program. The Treasury Secretary will be required to report to Congress on a regular basis on the actions taken, along with a detailed financial statement. These reports will include information on each of the agreements made, insurance contracts entered into, and the nature of the asset purchased and projected costs and liabilities. Additional oversight will be provided by the Comptroller General (reports to Congress), a new Inspector General (audits and quarterly reports), a congressionally-appointed oversight panel (market and regulatory review, and reports to Congress on the program and the effectiveness of foreclosure mitigation efforts), and by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) (cost estimates). A report will be required from the Secretary of the Treasury with an analysis of the current financial regulatory framework and recommendations for improvements.

There are substantial limitations on having benefits for entities which created the problem and limitations on executive pay. In cases where financial institutions sell troubled assets directly to the government with no competitive bidding and where the government receives a meaningful equity position, the legislation states that, until that equity stake is sold, executives would not get incentives “to take unnecessary and excessive risks” and would have to give up or repay bonuses or other incentives based on financial statements that “are later proven to be materially inaccurate.” The bill also would prohibit “any golden parachute payment to senior executives.”

The legislation is less stringent in provisions for financial institutions that sell their assets to the government through an auction. Such provisions would apply only to companies that sell more than $300 million in assets and would subject companies and employees to extra taxes. Corporations would not be able to deduct any salary or deferred compensation of more than $500,000, and top executives would face a 20% excise tax on golden parachute payments if they left for any reason other than retirement. In evaluating limitations on executive salaries, it is relevant to note that the Institute for Public Studies found that chief executives of large U.S. companies made an average of $10.5 million last year. That is more than 300 times the pay of the average worker.

The final proposal does provide for debt insurance, as advocated for by House Republicans, but leaves it to the Secretary of the Treasury to utilize that approach so it seems unlikely that it will be implemented in light of the fact that Secretary Paulson has bluntly stated his disagreement with it. Had there been floor amendments, Congress could have structured standards for utilization of debt insurance.

Had we followed regular order with an opportunity to propose amendments, consideration could have been given to my proposal, S.2133, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to restructure interest and scheduling of payments. The so-called variable rate mortgages have confronted many homeowners with the surprise that original payments, illustratively, of $1200 a month were soon raised to $2000 which resulted in defaults. Individualized examination by the bankruptcy courts might show misrepresentation or even fraud to justify revising the interest payments and rearranging the payment schedule. Or consideration could have been given to Senator Durbin’s proposed legislation, S.2136, which would have authorized the bankruptcy courts to reset the principal balance depending on the value of the home. I opposed that bill because I thought it would discourage future lending, and in the long run raise the cost to homebuyers. But at least, following regular order, there would have been an opportunity to consider Senator Durbin’s proposal as well as my suggested legislation.

The legislation contains authority for the Treasury Secretary to compensate foreign central banks under some conditions. It provides that troubled assets held by foreign financial authorities and banks are eligible for the Toxic Assets Recover Program (TARP) if the banks hold such assets as a result of having extended financing to financial institutions that have failed or defaulted. Had there been an opportunity for floor debate, that provision might have been sufficiently unpopular to be rejected or at least sharply circumscribed with conditions.

As a step to help keep borrowers in their homes, I proposed language found in Section 119 (b) of the bill to address the concern that some loan servicers have been reluctant to modify home mortgage loan terms because they fear litigation from investors who hold securities or other vehicles backed by the mortgage in question. The loan servicers have a legal duty to the investors to maximize the return on their investments. In testimony on December 6, 2007, before the House Committee on Financial Services, Mark Pearce, speaking on behalf of the conference of State Bank supervisors, discussed a meeting with the top 20 subprime servicers. He explained that “many of them brought up fear of investor lawsuits” as a hurdle to voluntary loan modification efforts. Because the rescue legislation encourages the government to seek voluntary loan modifications, it is important to remove any impediments to such modifications. To that end, the language provides a legal safe harbor for mortgage servicers making loan modifications, if the loan modifiers take reasonable mitigation steps, including accepting partial payments from homeowners.

On reforms to prevent a recurrence of this crisis, we need to question whether the rating agencies adequately analyzed mortgage-backed securities before issuing investment-grade ratings. These agencies appear to have failed. In July of 2007, when it became apparent that ratings issued by the big three rating agencies-Moody’s, S&P and Fitch- could not be relied upon, I urged the relevant committees to look into the ratings that those agencies issued in recent years regarding mortgage-backed securities. Financial institutions that issue asset-backed securities obtain ratings for such securities. The failure to issue reliable ratings misrepresented the facts and fed the ability of financial institutions to tout the value of securities even though their value was declining. Congress and the regulators need to take up the rating agencies issue, and consider whether ratings agencies that have utterly failed to detect and reflect the risks associated with the securities they were rating should be accorded any reliance or role in our financial system. Some have suggested they should be regulated and we may need to consider that.

In addition, Congress and the regulators should review “off-balance sheet” transactions and leveraging. There should be a close examination on whether banks are sufficiently transparent and providing accurate accounting that truly reflects risk and leverage. Similarly there should be a review on Credit Default Swaps (CDS), which are privately traded derivatives contracts that have ballooned to make up what is a $2 trillion dollar market according to the Bank of International Settlements. They are a fast-growing major type of financial derivative. Many experts assert that they have played a critical role in this financial crisis as various financial players believed that they were safe because they thought CDS fully insured or protected them, but the CDS market is unregulated and no one really knows what exposure everyone else has from the CDS contracts. Consideration should be given to subjecting all over-the-counter derivatives onto a regulated exchange similar to that used by listed options in the equity markets.
Overleveraging has been a contributing factor in the turmoil that now threatens our financial institutions. We have seen a massive expansion of the practice of leveraged financial institutions (banks, investment banks, and hedge funds) making investments with borrowed money. In turn, they borrow more money by using the assets they just purchased as collateral. This sequence is continued again and again. The financial system, in its efforts to deleverage, is contracting credit. They must guard against future losses by holding more capital. Deleveraging is leading to difficulty on Main Street for individuals seeking to get a mortgage or buy a car. If a financial institution is able to unload its toxic assets onto the government, it will again be able to resume its lending activities that are crucial for economic growth in the United States. Unfortunately, much of the financial crisis has arisen from miscalculations of the risks involved with purchasing large amounts of securities backed by subprime mortgages and other toxic assets. We now see a situation where we are not just talking about a handful of firms. This is a widespread problem that should be addressed by this package and in future reforms of our financial regulatory structure.

In addition, the package crafted by Senate leaders includes two notable changes from the version that was rejected by the House on Monday. It includes a tax package that was previously passed in the Senate by a vote of 93-2 on September 23, 2008, but has since been rejected by the House in a dispute over revenue offsets. It includes tax incentives for wind, solar, biomass, and other alternative energy technologies. It also includes critically important relief from the Alternative Minimum Tax, which threatens to raise the tax liability of over 22 million unintended filers in 2008 if no action is taken. Finally, the package includes a host of provisions that either expired in 2007 or are set to expire in 2008, including the research and development tax credit, the IRA Charitable Rollover, rail line improvement incentives, and quicker restaurant and retail depreciation schedules. I supported the Senate-passed tax extenders bill because it struck a responsible balance on the issue of revenue raising offsets.

The package also includes a provision to temporarily increase the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) insurance limit to $250,000. Currently, the FDIC provides deposit insurance which guarantees the safety of checking and savings deposits in member banks, up to $100,000 per depositor per bank. Member banks pay a fee to participate. The current $100,000 limit has been unchanged since 1980 despite inflation. This approach is supported by both Senator McCain and Senator Obama, by House Republicans, and by the FDIC Chairman Sheila Bair. Raising the cap could stem a potential run on deposits by bank customers, particularly businesses, who fear losing their money. Such fears contributed to the collapse of Washington Mutual and Wachovia Bank.

Congress has been called upon to make the best of a very bad situation. Careful oversight of the authority given to the Treasury Department will need to be undertaken, and a review of our regulatory structure will be necessary as we move forward.

Thank you also for expressing your concerns regarding the future of social security. I have long been a supporter of efforts to honor the commitments made to senior citizens through the Social Security system. The Social Security program represents a vital social compact between the federal government and our nation’s aging population. As the baby boom population ages and enters into retirement, the need for Social Security reform becomes even more urgent. I believe any restructuring of the Social Security system must ensure that no paying individual be denied benefits or be removed from the Social Security rolls.
I am concerned about the potential insolvency of Social Security, which, according to the March 2008 Social Security Trustees report, could be as early as 2041. Even sooner, in 2017, cash-flow deficits are projected to begin. In other words, benefit payout will exceed incoming revenue and surpluses will end. In order to continue paying 100 percent of scheduled benefits, the Social Security Administration will need to begin redeeming its accumulated trust fund bonds from the Treasury.

I have supported so-called “lockbox” legislation that addresses the long-term solvency of the Social Security Trust Fund. This “lockbox” would require that any Social Security surplus funds be utilized solely for Social Security and would include budget mechanisms to ensure that Social Security revenues are not used for other purposes. I believe including Social Security surpluses in the budget is an artificial way to balance the budget because they are, in effect, a trust fund to pay Social Security recipients in the future. By invading the trust fund, we are spending more than we can afford and postponing current debt in the hope of finding a way to pay Social Security recipients when the due date arises. During consideration of the FY09 budget resolution I supported several amendments to prevent usage of the trust fund surpluses for anything other than Social Security solvency.

I did not take a position on the President’s plan for Social Security that was laid out in 2005, because I think Congress must review the details of a proposal before an evaluation can be made. I am prepared to examine any reform plan suggested by the Administration or members of Congress. When meaningful legislation is presented, I will remain committed to the bedrock principle that Social Security must be structured so that all workers, young and old, will have the benefits on which they have come to rely.

Again, thank you for contacting me on these important issues. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

Guest Post: Is being a Yuppie so bad?

// 5 Comments »

Posted in Guest Posts, money, reflecting on self

The first time I encountered Alex Fisher was on a blogging conference call, set up by Brazen Careerist. We get on the line for a chance to talk to Penelope Trunkwith a few other Gen Y bloggers and no one else dials in. On one hand, I was pretty annoyed – who do these people think they are to stand up Penelope Trunk and a chance to have their blogging questions answered. On the other hand, it was great – Alex and I had a great opportunity to ask lots of questions and get individualized attention (and who doesn’t love attention)!

I hope you enjoy Alex’s guest post today, Is being a Yuppie so bad? It is a fun take on an uncomfortable title.

What is a Yuppie?

I’ve heard people use the word ‘yuppie’ referring to other people, sometimes referring to me. I’ve heard it used with both negative and positive connotations, too. I set out to determine what a yuppie really is today and if I am one.

From Wikipedia: The term yuppie (short for “young urban professional” or “young upwardly-mobile professional”) refers to self-reliant, financially secure individualists, particularly from the upper-middle class.

Am I a Yuppie?

Alright, so reading the first definition I can see that perhaps describing me. I am a young upwardly-mobile professional as I have gone from being a college student living at home working part-time to living on my own working full-time and more.

Self-reliant? Totally, at least, as self-reliant as a human can realistically be in this world. I don’t have delusions that I can get by in the world alone without the help of anyone else. Friends and family are important and support me in what I do, but I realize it’s up to me to do those things that are important to get done.

Financially secure individualist? Yeah, totally. I have some student loan debt and who knows where this economy is going in the next few years, but I’ve been saving money and enjoy my old shoes and old car still. I don’t have the latest and greatest luxuries and gadgets most of the time, and I mean come on– I started a finance blog. I’m a personal finance nerd!

Upper-middle class? Well, taking opinion out of it I decided to type my salary into Global Rich List and get an idea of where I fall in line of the richest people in the world. Chances were just by being American I would rank high so I looked at where the average family making $50,000 / year is and compared myself to it. It will suffice it to say I’m at least middle class and probably close enough to upper-middle class in terms of income.

So, according to Wikipedia’s definition I fit the description of being a yuppie and have no need to ashamed of it.

What else could yuppie mean?

Top entry of many on Urban Dictionary: a very arrogant well put together young urban professional who you more than likely will find wearing Gucci and prada with a large bank account which they love to brag about. You can find them drinking Starbucks, living in a one bedroom apartment in a city where they will pay 1000-2000 a month for and spending another 3000 a month on their credit cards. They brag about their designer clothes and love to flaunt them , as well as their wealth. They look down upon anyone who isn’t as wealthy or high status as they are. Men are likely to be found wearing designer suits, Gucci preferably with slicked back or well cut hair. The women will be wearing Prada/Gucci and Fendi. The most arrogant conceited f**ks on the planet.

The entry went on to give most of the characters in the excellent movie American Psycho as examples of yuppies.

Wow, so that description of a yuppie is most definitely not one I’d like to associate to myself. And certainly, when the term was coined in the 1980s and was aimed more at young urban professionals with an arrogance to match their over-inflated wallets the negative connotation of the word could be assumed.

I think what’s illustrated in these two different definitions is that the term yuppie means different things to different people in different times.

The definition of yuppie is changing

I’m under the impression the term is losing it’s negative connotation and is evolving to represent young professionals who are trying to do well and lead the way for our generation to take responsibility for the world in which we live.

It seems like some of the initial negativity in the term yuppie could have been caused not only because of the prideful spirit of the young urban professionals, but because of the jealousy of the people lacking less money, objects, and social status than the yuppies of the 80s.

Today, I look around and see lots of new luxury cars on the road, people wearing brand new $50 t-shirts that were designed to look old, expensive sunglasses, a Starbucks on every corner, and lots of expensive martini bars. These aren’t necessarily bad things, but I think the culture has moved from jealousy to trying to emulate the living large style and delusions of the original yuppies. At one time, if you had a cell phone that automatically made you a yuppie. The term has since lost it’s original meaning as the quality, or perhaps excess, of everyone’s life has grown.

So, sure I like a good expensive martini sometimes. And even though I’ll drive my current Ford Focus into the ground past it’s current 102,000 miles I will eventually get a new car– maybe even a fancy full size one! However, I lack much of the delusion and pride of the original yuppies and think others like me are out there too.

Generation Y and the new yuppies

Many of us in our 20s and 30s are self-reliant individualists, have money in the bank or a 401K, work hard and are doing better than our parents, and realize we have it better than a lot of people. We do these things and live this lifestyle not thinking we are better than everyone else who has less, but realizing our efforts help influence our luck and take responsibility for the direction and success of our own life.

We are the new yuppies and I’m not ashamed to admit it.

Alex Fisher rants periodically on his personal website Young Professional Finance Blog. You can read more about saving, investing, and financial ideas for and by young professionals on YPFB.

Is Arlen Specter concerned about his constituents?

October 16, 2008 // 14 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

I’ve been really pissed at Senator Arlen Specter for the last week. Pissed is actually the nice way to describe how I feel. I am outraged by the Senator and his staff.

Why?

I am on a one woman campaign to get Senator Specter and Senator Casey to pay attention to their Gen Y constituents. As of today, I have only had one response from Senator Robert Casey and two responses from Senator Specter.

The mortgage bailout sparked this feeling in me – this feeling that said “wait a minute, no one cares that Gen Y will still be paying for this bailout with their last dying breath”. This feeling is also marked with an urge that says “you have got to be kidding me”.

So I started sending emails to senators. In the last volley of emails, I thanked Senator Specter for his response but pointed out that he did not answer any of the questions I had posed to him. The response I received on Tuesday, October 14th is printed below.

The Response from Senator Specter:

I was outraged by his response. Once again, there was no real answer to the questions I posed. But even more concerning was the lack of an attempt on the part of his staff to provide an answer. An inability to attempt to answer the question “What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?” is unacceptable.

So how do we capture the attention of our elected officials?

First things first, we all need to vote. I don’t care if there is rain, snow or a beautiful sun shining down on you. The weather is not an excuse to not vote. I also do not care if the line is long. If an AARP member can stand in line for an hour to vote, so can you. And besides, your knees are younger. Bring an MP3 player and you can entertain yourself during your wait. I bring books to read. I survive the process.

Second, care about local elections. John McCain or Barack Obama will not be accessible to you when either one is elected president. They may be “in touch” now but that will all change soon due to something called “National Security”. And frankly, you shouldn’t be able to call the president and get through to him. I would hope that he would have much bigger fish to fry. It is much more realistic to think you will be able to contact the office of a local/regional elected official. But also know that it takes work and you’ll have to contact a lot of them. Repeatedly.

Third, be an informed voter. Know who the candidates are and what they stand for. This can be a little tough in local governments but the information is out there. And you’re a smart person – with a little effort, you can find that information and cross over into the category of “informed”. Believe it or not, “informed” may get you farther than being only “smart”.

Fourth, don’t just vote down the party line. No one benefits when you vote down the party line. Sure, it’s easy. They even make a handy little switch for you to flick (or button to press) to help you do it. But that doesn’t mean it is the right thing to do. Voting needs to be accessible to all but it’s a very serious decision. Take a moment to think before you press that button.

I sent another email to the Senator this afternoon. I know I probably won’t get a very good response but it is so important to show that younger constituents have serious concerns that need to be addressed with the same level of respect given to older Pennsylvanians.

My Response to Senator Specter:

A Response from Senator Specter

October 9, 2008 // 3 Comments »

Posted in education, money, politics

My “Comment” to Senator Arlen Specter:

What is the senator doing to help the overwhelming number of Gen X and Gen Y professionals with an unmanageable burden of student loans?

While this may not be a major concern of older Pennsylvanians, it is a major concern for young professionals (who will eventually be providing key services for older Pennsylvanians) and young families. With sky rocketing tuition, more and more young Pennsylvania voters are graduating with student loan payments that are larger than a monthly mortgage payment.

A mortgage bailout, while appealing to your older constituents, does nothing help the next generations who will be leading this state in the years to come. It does take them any closer to owning a home and it does not free up credit in order for them to take on small business loans.

What will you do to earn the support of Gen Y? What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?

The Response from Senator Specter:

Dear Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for contacting me regarding your views on student loans. I appreciate you taking the time to inform me of your views on this important matter. I would like to take this opportunity to offer a brief report on work being done in Congress to address education issues.

As Ranking Member of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee that oversees Federal discretionary education funding, I continue to review and advance methods to improve our nation’s education system. When I became Chairman of the Labor, Health and Human Services, and Education (LHHS) Appropriations Subcommittee in Fiscal Year (FY) 1996, the level of discretionary funding for the U.S. Department of Education was $23 billion. Throughout my tenure as Chairman or Ranking Member of LHHS, I have strongly advocated for increasing discretionary education funding to today’s level of $59.2 billion in FY08. This is an increase of $36.2 billion or 157% since FY96.

It is important that every child have access to the quality of education necessary for success in the 21st Century. I have worked from my Appropriations Subcommittee position to highlight the critical need for early childhood development programs. In FY08, I worked to secure nearly $6.9 billion for Head Start, which is a community-based program providing educational, nutritional and medical services to low-income preschoolers. Since FY96, Federal funding for Head Start has increased from $3.6 billion to nearly $6.9 billion, or 92%.

In 2001 I supported enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act, which was approved with bipartisan support and ensures that students will no longer be allowed to advance from grade to grade regardless of whether they are learning at grade level. However, I strongly believe there needs to be state flexibility in the implementation of the Act. Each state has the knowledge of the particular challenges facing its education system, including accounting for students with learning, emotional and English language difficulties.

The No Child Left Behind Act is expected to be considered for reauthorization in 2008. In the past, I invited superintendents from Pennsylvania to Washington, D.C. to testify before the U.S. Secretary of Education at a hearing on education funding, including funding for the No Child Left Behind Act. The testimony of the superintendents was critical to providing insight on state flexibility and implementation of the Act. I will continue to work with Pennsylvania educators to ensure that they have a voice throughout the reauthorization process.

I also worked to provide $14 billion in FY08 for Title I grants to school districts, which comprises the largest part of the No Child Left Behind Act. Title I grant funds have increased 49.6% since the Act was passed in 2001.

I am also committed to ensuring that the Federal government meets its goal to provide 40% of the excess costs associated with providing special education to students with disabilities. To this end, I supported an allocation of $11 billion for Special Education Grants to states in FY08 to help states meet the goals of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. At this level of funding, I have worked to increase the Federal contribution to educate children with disabilities to 19% of the national average spending per student, up from 7.3% in FY96. Additionally, I demonstrated my commitment to reaching the goal of 40% as one of only ten members to cross the aisle to support an amendment offered by Senator Tom Harkin during the most recent reauthorization of this Act, which would have increased funding to meet this target by 2011. Unfortunately, the amendment failed.

Additionally, I have taken the lead on the LHHS Appropriations Subcommittee to increase funding for the Higher Education Act, which authorizes the Federal government’s student financial aid programs. Specifically, I have battled to increase the maximum award for Pell grants. This important financial aid program makes post-secondary education more affordable for our nation’s neediest students. Today, the maximum Pell grant award is $4,310. Since FY96, the maximum award has risen $1,771, or 72%, from $2,470 to $4,241.

The Higher Education Act also authorizes programs that provide services and incentives to disadvantaged students to help increase their access to postsecondary education. I have worked to secure funding for GEAR UP, which provides tutoring, financial aid counseling and college scholarships to low-income students from the seventh grade through high school graduation. Since the program began in FY99, I have consistently supported increasing funding from the initial $120 million to $303 million in FY08, an increase of $183 million or 153%. In addition, I have advocated for support of the TRIO program, which provides student support services to participants who are from low-income families and are first-generation college students. Federal funding for the TRIO program has increased from $463 million in FY96 to $828 million in FY08, an increase of $365 million or 79%.

I have been a strong advocate for our nation’s education systems and the students and families that are served by them, and I will continue to be in the future.

Thank you again for contacting me. The concerns of my constituents are of great importance to me, and I rely on you and other Pennsylvanians to inform me of your views. Should you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact my office or visit my website at http://specter.senate.gov.

Sincerely,

Arlen Specter

My Reply to the Senator:

Dear Senator Specter:

Thank you for making the effort to tailor your response to my question. However, the most important question you made no attempt to answer.

What will you do to earn the support of Gen Y? What will you do to help us as we begin our lives in Pennsylvania?

Telling me about your support of “No Child Left Behind” does not tell me how you will help me or my family. I don’t have kids. And my husband and I cannot afford to have children due to rising costs.

We may have had access to education in order to succeed in the 21st century but we are unable to pay for it. Monies were made available for low income or disadvantaged students but the middle class of suburbia is struggling to educate their young adults in a competitive and cost effective manner.

We are graduating with more and more debt every year. Does this concern you? It concerns me. It concerns my family. It concerns my neighbors and it concerns my peers.

What are you going to do to help your constituents? What are you going to do to support the “twenty-somethings” in Pennsylvania?

I look forward to your response.

Kind Regards,

Mrs. Dorie A. Morgan

A response from Senator Casey

October 3, 2008 // 7 Comments »

Posted in money, politics

Last week, I submitted my concerns about the bailout and my questions on student loans to Senator Robert Casey’s website.  I submitted my comments under the “Education” option from the drop down menu (because it was more about college than mortgage) and asked about what the Senator was doing to help his Gen Y constituents.  I even sent him links to various Gen Y bloggers who had similar concerns.

Today, I received his response. In which he makes no comment about student loans, Gen Y or the links that were sent. I know some intern on his staff probably skimmed the letter and picked a form response but I am still fairly annoyed.

For your reading pleasure, I’ve posted the form letter I have received and my response to his letter below. If you haven’t already contacted your Senator and Representatives, it is so easy to do and I highly recommend you get involved and say something.  Now is the time to show Washington that Millennials are a force to be acknowledged.

Response from Senator Robert Casey:

Dear Mrs. Morgan:

Thank you for taking the time to contact me regarding the proposal to stabilize the economy and our financial infrastructure. I appreciate hearing from all Pennsylvanians about the issues that matter most to them.

On Wednesday, October 1, the Senate passed H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008, a bill that will stabilize our credit markets, protect retirement and pension savings, modify troubled loans and protect taxpayers from paying for Wall Street’s mistakes. After careful consideration, I decided to vote for this legislation.

This is a time of great economic uncertainty in our Nation’s history. For many families in Pennsylvania and throughout the country, the recession has been part of their lives for many months now. Just this week we learned that the unemployment rate in Pennsylvania went from 5.4% to 5.8% in the month of August and for some parts of the state it went up far more than half a percentage point. We also learned that in the month of August the foreclosure rate in Pennsylvania went up by more than 60% from the previous year. The job loss and foreclosure rates are indicators of the economic trauma that many families have felt in Pennsylvania and across America.

Like you, I am not happy with the current crisis, and I’m angry about the climate of deregulation and deference to Wall Street over the last eight years that got us into this mess. However, failing to act will not simply punish those who brought us to this situation; it will punish everyone.

The Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008 (EESA) provides up to $700 billion to the Secretary of the Treasury to buy mortgages and other assets that are clogging the balance sheets of financial institutions and making it difficult for working families, small businesses and other companies to access credit. After purchasing these assets, the Department of Treasury will hold them until markets for them recover. Treasury would then plan to sell these assets for a profit, recouping most or all of the $700 billion for the benefit of taxpayers.

You should know that Congress has significantly improved the original proposal presented by the Bush administration. In the version passed by the Senate, executives will be held accountable for their past decisions through limitations on compensation, prohibitions against golden parachutes or excessive retirement packages, and requirements that unearned bonuses be returned. As improved by the Senate, the legislation also requires participating companies to provide warrants and other forms of equity so that taxpayers will share in the profits if the stock of these companies goes up as a result of Treasury Department intervention.

The EESA also contains several provisions directed at stemming the tide of mortgage foreclosures thereby keeping families in their homes and addressing the root cause which has led to a loss of investor confidence and the freezing of credit markets. It would require the Treasury Department, where possible, to modify troubled loans to help American families keep their homes. It would also expand the HOPE for Homeowners program and require other federal agencies to modify loans that they own or control.

To ensure that Treasury isn’t just getting a blank check, the legislation makes $250 billion available immediately, then requires the President to certify that additional funds are needed. The Treasury must report on the use of the funds and on progress in addressing the crisis. The bill establishes an Oversight Board so that the Treasury cannot act in an arbitrary manner and establishes a special inspector general to protect against waste, fraud and abuse.

The United States is in a financial crisis that could become worse than anything in a generation. In addition, our Nation’s problems are already spreading into the global economy. If the federal government fails to take action right now, there is a real threat to small businesses and jobs, as well as mortgages, pensions and savings.

For all these reasons, I concluded that Congress must act now, and I decided to vote in favor of H.R. 1424. In the last two weeks, I have worked hard to be sure that this bill includes provisions to help families who are struggling. I’ve closely questioned and sent two detailed letters to Treasury Secretary Paulson, Federal Reserve Chairman Bernanke and also spoke to leading economists about this legislation.

Enactment of this legislation is only the first in a series of steps we must take to bring about economic recovery. We need to institute rigorous and aggressive regulation of players in the market place in order to prevent the abuses which caused our economic problems.

Again, thank you for sharing your thoughts with me. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future about this or any other matter of importance to you.

If you have access to the Internet, I encourage you to visit my web site, http://casey.senate.gov. I invite you to use this online office as a comprehensive resource to stay up-to-date on my work in Washington, request assistance from my office or share with me your thoughts on the issues that matter most to you and to Pennsylvania.

Sincerely,
Bob Casey
United States Senator

My Response to the Senator:

Dear Senator Casey,
 
Thank you for taking the time to send me a form letter.
 
Sadly, your form letter did not address the questions I posed to you and your staff.  It makes me wonder if you truly heard the issues that matter most to your constituents.
 
Before I go any further, let me tell you how disappointed I am to know that you did in fact vote for H.R. 1424, the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act of 2008.  It does not protect taxpayers from paying for Wall Street’s mistakes and I am very concerned that you seem to think it does.  Keeping a family in a home who cannot afford said home does not make any sense. My husband and I did not even consider making the major purchase of home ownership until we were convinced beyond a shadow of a doubt that we could do so responsibly and without jeopardizing our financial future.
 
Continuing on my initial attempt to communicate with you and your staff: What are you doing to help those of us with student loans? While this may not be a major concern of older Pennsylvanians, it is a major concern for young professionals (who will eventually be providing key services for older Pennsylvanians) and young families.  With sky rocketing tuition, more and more young Pennsylvania voters are graduating with student loan payments that are larger than a monthly mortgage payment. 
 
What are you going to do to help younger Pennsylvanians?
 
Quite frankly, the idea of any sort of bailout disgusts me. But if relief is being offered to homeowners, it should be offered to young professionals as well.
 
I look forward to seeing your response.
 
Kind Regards,
 
Mrs. Dorie A. Morgan
 
PS – The act of email and an online submission form for initial contact implies access to internet. Perhaps you should rephrase that portion of your letter and provide other, non-electronic means of contact.

What if we bailed out student debt?

September 22, 2008 // 9 Comments »

Posted in What if?, choices, education, money

My husband and I were watching the news over the weekend, listening to commentary about the bailout.

How it is a bold move.

How it is the largest bailout since the Great Depression.

The kids I haven’t even made yet are going to be paying for their grandparents’ mistakes. And, to quote my grandfather, it “really burns me up”.

It kills me that the tax payers are going to be paying for this situation. I haven’t asked you to pay for my mistakes, why should I be paying for yours?

I really wonder about what kind of benefit this bailout would have.

While I ranted like a lunatic at Brian about the situation, I started spewing out random ideas that I thought would be better.

And one of them might actually be better.

If people are insistent that there be some sort of bailout, why not bail out student loans? After all, something around 50% of recent college graduates have student loans. Studentdebtalert.org goes so far as to say that 39% of college grads have “unmanageable” levels of student loan debt.

What would happen if that $700 billion dollars was used to bail out current students or graduates? How would that impact the economy? How would that influence our economic future?

At the moment, my student loan payments are larger than our mortgage. And our mortgage is cheaper than renting in our area. What would an extra thousand dollars in our pocket do for us every month?

And we aren’t the only ones in this situation. Every couple we know has student loan debt. And Brian and I are lucky ones because he doesn’t have any student loans to pay. We only have to carry my debt with us while most of our friends have payments to make for two people.

I should also make sure I say that I don’t believe that a student loan bailout would be a good idea either but playing with the “what if” is always a good idea.

If your student loans disappeared, how would it change your life?

Would you still be in your current line of work or would you pursue something different?

Would you stay in the part of the country where you live now or would you have more freedom to explore new places?

What would you do with that extra money?

Adventures in First Time Home Buying: Settlement

August 22, 2008 // 4 Comments »

Posted in home life, money

Buying our house has been a production since Day 1.  The first time we went through the property there was a dirty thong lying in the middle of the floor. After we placed a bid, we discover that the seller’s husband had killed himself inside the house.  Even when we went for the house inspection, the seller was there telling us everything that was wrong with the house.

But none of that mattered because we were buying my dream home.  And we were starting our real estate empire.  And we were doing this before Brian turned 25.  In the grand scheme of things, life is good and sweat equity would be even better.

So last Thursday we go on the final walk of the house.  We check all the lights, appliances, electric and a dozen other things that Brian and the realtor contemplated while I dreamed about what walls I wanted knocked down.  Things looked pretty good.  There was a giant construction dumpster out back, mounded over with their junk (including porn, booze and electronics) but that’s okay because none of it was in my dream house.

Feeling pretty good, we went out for dinner and just let ourselves feel excited for what was about to happen in our lives.

Settlement was scheduled for 10 in the morning on Friday, so I was too excited to sleep at 5am.  We got to the office by 9:45, just so I could be sure that everything would run smoothly.  Part of me wanted to get there hours early but I realized that it would have been excessive and everyone would have realized just how neurotic I really am.

Here’s where it really starts to get fun.

Nick, our realtor, greets us at the door.  We go through the usual niceties, he asks how we are feeling, do we have questions, yada yada yada.  Then he looks at us and says “listen, I didn’t want to worry you yesterday but…”

But…?  Where is this “but” coming from and why is it showing up at my settlement?

Nick goes on to say (rather quickly, in one giant sentence) that apparently, the sellers had filed for bankruptcy several years ago and technically they can’t sell the house without permission from a judge but that isn’t the problem because the judge is going to give permission because of the husband committing suicide but the thing is that the seller’s lawyer never submitted the paper work to the court for the judge to sign and now we’re waiting to hear back from some paralegal who has been sent to track down the judge so we can buy our home.  But there’s no reason to worry because there’s nothing we can do now but wait.

Brian forgets to breathe. I ask what we need to do next. And we move towards the table anyway because all we can do is wait.

Eventually, all of the parties in question make their way to the table.  And we wait.  The seller looks like she is going to have a nervous breakdown.  Our mortgage broker is trying to fix a mistake on our paperwork.  Our realtor keeps offering us water.  And the seller’s agents are chatting as if nothing is wrong.  And then suddenly, the other agent comes out with “By the way, the Use and Occupancy didn’t come through yet” in this odd, matter of fact tone.  Like U&O wasn’t written into our contract as our requirement.

We still ended up settling on Friday, even though there were problems.  Partially because we were assured that U&O would be finalized on Monday.  Partially because we didn’t want witness the seller going off the deep end. And because we finally got word that the judge signed off on the paperwork.

It leaves us in this interesting situation where we own a home.  Sort of. We’re paying interest, utilities and homeowners insurance.  But we can’t occupy the home.  Or start renovations on the house.  Much like the beginning of our twenties, we’re in limbo.

*On Monday, I’ll be asking the question “Who the hell is Pete?”  It is now the question that consumes my mind.  Trust me, you won’t want to miss it.

At this point, is it worth it?

July 8, 2008 // 1 Comment »

Posted in choices, home life, money, work life

My friend Erica is a lawyer.  More specifically, she works in patent law for a firm in NYC.  She has two secretaries, she’ll make partner in eight years and she makes at least three times as much money as I do.  She has a fabulous boyfriend and she’s thinking about buying a condo in the city. 

She also works at least 65 hours a week.  And that’s a conservative estimate on my part.  She tells me its only sixty hours a week but I lived with this girl in college and I know Erica has no sense of time when she’s working.  I also know that her secretaries think she is working too much as well.

When you think about all of the things you need to do during the week, just as basic aspects of life, how is it possible to consistently work 65 hours a week?  And when a case gets hectic, is it possible to have any hope of a home life available to you?

At what point is the money just not enough?

I’ve read that statistic about 40k being the magic number, but Erica brought up a really good point that I tend to forget about: the difference between making forty thousand dollars annually in, let’s say, Fairport Harbor, Ohio and New York City is monumental.  Even the difference between Levittown, PA (where I live) and NYC is monumental.  But so what? 

What makes the money worth it?

I have mixed feelings about all of this. 

On one hand, I kind of like the idea of working as hard as you can until you are ready/want to reproduce and then cut back.  But realistically, that’s not going to happen.  You’ll either put off kids because the time is just “not right” or you’ll pay a fortune for childcare because you won’t want to give up your career and you can’t get more than six weeks maternity leave without losing your job.

On the other hand, I know myself.  If I don’t work hard at finding balance, I never will.  If I don’t set clear boundaries for myself, I’ll neglect my own basic needs.  And while that could benefit me in my career (depending on where I was working), it would not benefit me in ensuring my husband would be in my bed when I came home at night. 

I’d be lying if I didn’t say that the money she makes doesn’t tempt me.  And when I hear her tell me that I could easily do the work she does, it makes it even more tempting.  But since I know I can’t really have it all and still have my sanity, what are the pieces that I really care about?