The First Family and multi-generational living

I was struck and intrigued upon hearing MSNBC's Nora O'Donnell report that Michelle Obama's mother would be moving into the White House with the new First Family.

In fact, Michelle Obama's mother has assisted in much of the child rearing while the Obamas were on the road campaigning for Papa Obama. And what is notable here is that, while the Obamas can certainly afford nanny care, they choose family care.

Yet another indication of the "realness" of President-elect Obama and his family: they can afford professional childcare, would probably appreciate the value of a teacher-nanny, but see more value in incorporating the extended family. The Jolie-Pitt family also went public recently with their multi-generational approach to rearing their burgeoning brood, with Pitt's parents living with the family to assist at the birth of new twins.

In our society, it seems like multi-generational child rearing has been squarely in the conversational domain of religious right-ists and evangelicals. It was resigned to a "family values" issue. In the spirit of taking "family values" away back from the religious right and restoring it to all of us who love our families...

Multi-generational child rearing isn't just free childcare for strapped families. It reinforces the family's own values, traditions, beliefs and customs in a way that no one or two parents alone can quite accomplish. In a culture that homogenizes our kids via television and mass marketing tie-ins - and, don't get me wrong, there's a valid role for a culture that reinforces our sameness and a commonality of language - grandparents are able to change the focus and introduce kids to new activities and hobbies, old family stories, a different voice of authority to deal with, and a reinforcment of what matters to your family.

It seems like a gimme, but its a model we haven't seen very much in our social limelight. It will be fun to see in the White House over the next 4-8 years.

Bush Admin's bait and switch

See this big shiny thing here?! Over here! The humongous $700 billion "bailout bill" that is going to scare the crap out of you?? Pay close attention to it! Very close!

... And don't notice this $140 billion bank giveaway that we're going to do while you aren't looking.

This gem from yesterday's Washington Post made me so angry I had to wait until today to even write anything about it. Here are some key details about what the Administration took from our Federal coffers and gave away to our shambles of a banking system:

The financial world was fixated on Capitol Hill as Congress battled over the Bush administration's request for a $700 billion bailout of the banking industry. In the midst of this late-September drama, the Treasury Department issued a five-sentence notice that attracted almost no public attention.

But corporate tax lawyers quickly realized the enormous implications of the document: Administration officials had just given American banks a windfall of as much as $140 billion.

..."It was a shock to most of the tax law community. It was one of those things where it pops up on your screen and your jaw drops," said Candace A. Ridgway, a partner at Jones Day, a law firm that represents banks that could benefit from the notice. "I've been in tax law for 20 years, and I've never seen anything like this."

More than a dozen tax lawyers interviewed for this story -- including several representing banks that stand to reap billions from the change -- said the Treasury had no authority to issue the notice.

...No one in the Treasury informed the tax-writing committees of Congress about this move, which could reduce revenue by tens of billions of dollars. Legislators learned about the notice only days later.

DeSouza, the Treasury spokesman, said Congress is not normally [my emphasis] consulted about administrative guidance.

Because, you know, the circumstances we're now in are just, you know, normal.