The Hand That Rocks the Cradle Balances the Checkbook
After weeks of race-baiting with the Trayvon Martin case, the Democrats are at it again and this time they’re dipping their toes into Mommy Wars. Hillary Rosen, Democrat strategist, has let us all know again what she and the Left (especially faux feminists) thinks of stay-at-home moms. You don’t count. Rosen let out her venom on CNN against Ann Romney.
‘What you have is, Mitt Romney running around the country saying, “Well, you know, my wife tells me that what women really care about are economic issues. And when I listen to my wife, that’s what I’m hearing.”
‘Guess what: his wife has actually never worked a day in her life. She’s never really dealt with the kind of economic issues that a majority of the women in this country are facing in terms of how do we feed our kids, how do we send them to school, and why do we worry about their future.’
Besides the obvious knock at motherhood and insinuating, not so subtly, that raising five children is somehow not work worthy of respect, she also assumes that most American women have to work in order to put food on the table and those who don’t simply live in the lap of luxury. Obama himself had this to say on the subject a few days ago at the White House forum for women (to which no conservative women were invited). As reported by the UK Daily Mail,
“Once I was in the state legislature, I was teaching, I was practicing law, I’d be traveling….And we didn’t have the luxury for her not to work.”
The idea that stay-at-home moms are financially able to do so is a popular one on the Left. The Democrats would have you believe that only rich women can stay home. This is a lie. On the contrary, staying at home is not a “luxury” but a sacrifice. Rosen chose to sacrifice her children for a high paying job in the Democrat Party. She could have given up pedicures, designer clothes, fancy cars and political power instead. It’s amazing what you can live without when you decide to do so. (At one point Rosen did stay home with her children for a while. I wonder if during that time she considered her ideas on the economy void.)
When Obama was a state senator in my home state of Illinois he brought home a salary of $60,000 plus an extra $32,000 as a guest lecturer at the University of Chicago. This combined salary is more than my family lives on right now and we have the same number of children and live in the same state. According to the Obamas’ lifestyle, however, it wasn’t enough for them (not surprising considering he and Michelle have a penchant for Wagyu beef and Wednesday night cocktail parties with celebrities.) You can’t serve Stevie Wonder canapes from the frozen food section at Aldi. It simply isn’t done.
© 2012, Megan Fox. All rights reserved.
Help HillBuzz by Shopping Amazon
"Bee" Advised!
I look forward to your comments. Please follow these simple guidelines:
- Please do not complain about your comment not yet showing up
- Stay on topic of the article ("This is OT, but..." = bad!)
- I will STING if you troll, spam, bait, swear or attack someone
Excellent piece, Megan.
Thank you so much for cross posting it here on HillBuzz.
Barack Obama admits that as recently as 14 years ago he couldn’t even support his own family. That would be 11 years before he became President. But he is qualified to be President of the United States?
I seem to remember that he and the Mooch were living the American nightmare by putting a lot of debt on their credit cards and pulling equity out of their house before he was anointed. You know, it’s hard to make ends meet on $400K.
The Republicans should be hitting on that with a ball bat! So Obama feels our pain. Sure, Sugar. $400K, is several times more than my husband and I made at the time with both of us working – and we had good jobs. Heck, it’s several times more than we ever made in one year.
For the parties who are supposedly all about “choice,” they don’t seem to support many choices — other than their very limited ones, of course.
One of the reasons I left the Democrat party for good over a decade ago was that I finally came to the realization that they did not support my choice to have my babies, they did not support my choice to stay home to raise my children, and they did not support my choice to home school my children. I am no longer a feminist for the same reasons, along with the fact that they don’t support my choice to depend on my husband to support our family (and we are by no means “rich” — there are a lot of choices we have made to give up, forego or defer until the money was there).
Thank you, Megan, for this wonderful post. As a former stay-at-home mom who graduated two daughters from homeschool, I can tell you that this was one of the best decisions I ever made in my life. I struggled financially during all those years, but I don’t regret one moment of that time.
Both of my daughters are happy, well-adjusted and confident women who have made their own mark on this world in their adult lives.
I feel that the sacrifices I made for them have actually worked to my own benefit – giving me an appreciation for those who are struggling financially, especial in this O world. And now that I have re-entered the workforce, I see that I have gained a new confidence to venture out into new realms that never occurred to me to enter, such as politics.
May God bless you and your family and also all moms.
rosens’ whole life is void.
And why did comrade downgrade have to travel so much? None of his “jobs” would require that.
And what law practice did he have? Were his clients imaginary?
Kudos, Megan. You really nailed it with this one.
Great read Megan. Yes of course the MSNBC maddows gang have jumped on this and will continue to say repubs and Mitt are nort for women. Well not sure if maddows can even relate to stay at home moms and children. Staying at home is a tough decision for many Americans, and of course uis an individual decision based on weighing each family’s sacrifice and needs vs. necessities or luxuries and the potential benefits or offsets and balance that works best in balance for all family members. But as parents while our needs are also important, most put their childrens needs first. I disagree with what maddow and rosen say that most American women don’t have that choice financially. I think the higher income families have an easier choice and at the opposite poverty level and welfare families have little or none and are at home with their children. I think the ones in between above poverty but far from the so called middle class have it someways tougher to manage to saty at home with kids, because they must work to meet necessities. However, as little as we make my husband even with his 4-year degree and 18 years experience in his industry only makes 43,000 per year and I work some part-time when he is home bring in about $ 5,500 last year. I am for the most part a full-time stay at home mom of three 11, 14 and 17. I could work all year and make about 27-30,000. But we weighed the sacrifices vs. the benefits and for us you know we just do without what most folks would call necessities. We have on later model car and another 12 year old car. We don’t have cable (just HTDV antenna) but instead have internet. And will keep up with news there and can pick and choose to get a more balance media viewpoint vs. a mostly one-sided tv media. We live in a modest 1500 sq.ft house worth maybe now $90-110. We do very little travel, but yet my kids have gone on church and school sponsored trips and older one has earned their way to visit Washington DC, NewYork and we gone to Africa on church mission trip. ( we reside in Indiana). They have friends that have a lot of stuff, but their friends like hanging here also, even when their parents are home from work. So no the kids are not deprived and are not outcasts. They also play sports and piano and guitar and dance. They wear hand me downs and nice second hand store items and walmart and target (on sale) hear and their. Yes we use a lot of merchandise coupons and other relatives give us coupons. So I guess if they think that making just under $50,000 a yr. for a family of 5 is the rich, then I guess their premise may be true. Of course on the flip side, If others can balance their 2-income family and have jobs that pay much more than yes that’s great too. And yes we would like to have more$ and more stuff and more savings, but we are also realistic and content and count our blessings for what we have. I don’t home school , but my husband and I definitely spend and input as much as we can and as much as the public schools let you. Ours wants your volunteer labor and money, they say they value your input but don’t really want it. A constant struggle as unfortunately probably half the teachers in our district are sub par. So we pick up the slack. They are not straight A students but are pretty close and they are good at math because my husband was an accounting and mathematics major and teaches my 14 yr.old even a bit of basic calculus. My 17 year old has had offers to attend some great colleges by academic performance and athletic alone. And would also have gotten aid from private colleges based on income alone ( so no public aid is necessary-but we have no problem with us or anyone else getting public aid to further education if they value it wisely) he wants to be an engineer or bio-engineer, while the 14yr old wants to be either a plumber or fireman, which is great ( but may change his mind since he is probably smarter than my 17 yr.old.).So I agree with others here it can be done, its not always easy- admittingly- but can be done and wanted to share our story to others , and wish the left would also see this.