Credit unions see uptick in new members – before #OccupyWallStreet Bank Transfer Day. The many faces of Sybil - unmasked. Love and marriage in the worst of times. Plus, the latest news.
Supercommittee may hit a wall on defense spending
The deadline is looming – in just four weeks, the 12 members of the so-called “supercommittee” must deliver their debt-reduction package to congress. So far, the six Democrats and six Republicans remain mum on their plans, holding meetings behind closed doors and shying away from hallway chatter.
“The country very much wants us to do the right thing. The country has not agreed on what that thing is,” Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Calif.) said on KPCC's AirTalk. “You talk to three different people and get three different answers.”
Sherman said that the committee must do more than changing discretionary spending policies, as discretionary spending isn't authorized by permanent laws and is easily overturned by appropriations bills. He said that decision makers need to buckle down and make hard choices, such as changes to entitlement spending and taxes.
“Entitlement changes and tax changes are made pretty rarely," Sherman said. "It is very powerful to be able to bring your proposal up for a yes or a no from both houses without a filibuster," he said.
Sherman went on to say that if the committee only comes up with a slightly different formula of discretionary spending, “that’s rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. They can claim to have done something, but it won’t be lasting.”
Arnold Steinberg, veteran Republican strategist and analyst, said he agrees with Sherman that the country needs a commitment to major systemic change, but politics will always deter a quick decision.
“I think both sides are not being entirely forthright,” he said. “A lot of Democrats are seeing what we spent on the war and keep bringing that up, and then you have a lot of Republicans who are looking at all these bailouts, and now the solar situation, and those are clouding the debate.”
Steinberg said he thinks the supercommittee’s decision should at the very least pull the nation out of its current monetary cycle so that the unemployed can’t depend on the government for funding.
“This government is borrowing money from China to give money to states like California to pay people who are not working, when they could be working to accept lower wages, which is what my dad did 50 years ago,” he said. “What we need to do is to have some sort of agreement by the supercommittee to restore confidence in the economy so that we don’t continue this legacy of redistributing income to large numbers of people working for the public sector." Steinberg said these people aren't increasing productivity.
Today the supercommittee is holding a public hearing, at which Douglas Elmendorf, the director of the Congressional Budget Office, is testifying. But the biggest elephant in that room is the mandatory defense budget cuts written into the deal. The cuts, designed as a trigger to spur the committee into action, are supposed to kick in automatically if they can’t come up with a way to reduce the deficit by at least $1.2 trillion by the Nov. 23 deadline. But even if that happens, Hill-watchers say, the GOP won’t stand for a reduction in defense dollars.
Senator John McCain (R-Ariz.) has already vowed to lead the fight against any further defense cuts beyond the $450 billion mandated last August. “Congress is not bound by this,” he said last week, “It’s something we passed; we can reverse it.” Senator Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) has already threatened to walk off the supercommittee rather than see a reduction in defense.
WEIGH IN:
So, how much juice do these threats have? Can Republicans really overturn the mandated cuts? If defense is off the table, what happens to the “trigger”? Will the super committee meet their deadline? Where would you trim the budget – defense, health, education?
Guests:
Kitty Felde, KPCC’s Washington, D.C. correspondent
Rep. Brad Sherman, D-CA’s 27th District, which includes the west San Fernando Valley cities of Sherman Oaks, Reseda, Northridge, and Porter Ranch; chairman of the House Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade and a member of the House Financial Services Committee
Arnold “Arnie” Steinberg, veteran Republican strategist and analyst
Will you move your money on Bank Transfer Day?
This Nov. 5, the big banks may learn the true power of social media. The day that has been pegged as "Bank Transfer Day" was inspired by a wee Facebook status update last month that simply said: "Bank of America's charging $5."
That customer was complaining about the new debit card fee – much like new fees announced by Wells Fargo and Citibank recently.
It was the last straw for Bank of America customer Kristen Christian when she read the news on her friend's page. "I was very disappointed, to say the least. At that point, I began researching. When I found credit unions, I was floored. Lower rates [and] any fees to join usually go to charity....," Christian told Marketplace last week.
Christian logged on to Facebook again and created an event called Bank Transfer Day. In a matter of days, tens of thousands RSVPed with a promise to move their money. While many of those learned about it from the Occupy movement, it turns out Christian is not tied to Occupy Wall Street and sees her message as separate and distinct.
"While I do appreciate the enthusiasm that Occupy Wall Street has put into Bank Transfer Day, I don't personally condone the means of which they approach situations. I don't believe that people should go in large groups to banks to close their accounts, bringing signage and disrespecting bank employees." Christian says she has already found a credit union and will move her money by Nov. 5.
WEIGH IN:
Are you planning to switch, too? Or are you content enough to stay with your bank? Have you shopped around since the new fees were announced? Are credit unions the answer? Are the big banks too big to even feel a hit on Nov. 5?
Guest:
Chris Farrell, economics editor for Marketplace Money, a weekly one-hour personal finance show syndicated nationally on public radio by American Public Media
The many faces of Sybil – unmasked
In the early seventies, the nation was captivated by the story of "Sybil" – which was actually a synonym for psychiatric patient Shirley Mason. The book, written by journalist Flora Schreiber, detailed how Mason’s dedicated therapist Dr. Connie Wilbur used hypnotism, electro-shock and drug therapy to uncover the horrifying childhood trauma that led Sybil’s mind to fracture into 16 distinct personalities.
Readers were shocked, thrilled and titillated by the physical and sexual abuse inflicted upon young Sybil by her psychotic mother, and the extreme therapy that Dr. Wilbur used to finally "integrate" the many Sybils into one happy, functional, mature adult. The book sold millions of copies and was made into a television movie starring Sally Field and Joanne Woodward.
Now a new book reveals that Sybil’s story was largely fabricated – a collaboration between Wilbur, Schreiber and Mason that spawned a craze for a new diagnosis – Multiple Personality Disorder (MPD), now known as Dissociative Identity Disorder (DID). Pre-Sybil, there had been less than 200 known cases of MPD historically; after the book and movie, approximately 40,000 cases were reported in the next few years. Six years later MPD was introduced into the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders.
Today, DID remains a controversial topic in the mental health community. Some professionals question the validity of the diagnosis, claiming many cases can be attributed to patient suggestibility or other factors. This condition has long held a lurid fascination for the general public – from medieval tales of demonic possession, to the 19th century fad for parapsychology and hypnosis, to movie and TV depictions like “The Three Faces of Eve” and the Showtime series “The United States of Tara.”
WEIGH IN
But how real is DID? And assuming it is – what do we know about its causes? How many people does it affect, and are there commonalities among patients? How were public awareness and the study of dissociation influenced by the "Sybil" media phenomenon? Is it possible for someone to successfully fake the condition? What have we learned about diagnosis and treatment since the book?
Guests:
Debbie Nathan, author of “Sybil Exposed: The Extraordinary Story Behind the Famous Multiple Personality Case.” Nathan is an award-winning investigative journalist, editor and translator
Richard P. Kluft, M.D., clinical professor of psychiatry at Temple University School of Medicine
Richard J. McNally, Ph.D., professor and director of Clinical Training Department of Psychology at Harvard University, and author of "Remembering Trauma"
Love and marriage in the worst of times
A recent Atlantic article points out that an explosion of male joblessness and corresponding decline in their life prospects, coupled with an increase in women entering the professional world, has up-ended our ideas about the balance of financial power in a marriage.
Last year, women became the majority of the workforce for the first time in history. For every two men who get a college degree, three women will do the same. Of the 15 job categories projected to grow the most in the next decade in the U.S., all but two are occupied primarily by women.
These days, women are just as likely to out-earn their spouses as not. And with the balance of responsibility shifting at home, women who are in the market for a partner have had to revise their expectations accordingly.
This could be a refreshing change for women – and men – who have chafed under gender roles. Many modern women fully expect to work while their husband stays home. So, instead of aiming for the six-figure suit – who may very well be on the way to becoming an endangered species – why not snap up that gently-employed artistic type who might take on the housework and playdates if you bring home the bacon?
On the other hand, the plummeting economy may be wreaking havoc on our love lives in other ways. The newly laid off of either gender may feel their mojo dwindling as the weeks of unemployment drag on. Losing an impressive position may mean loss of status, even identity, not to mention pocket money.
WEIGH IN:
Where do you muster up the self-confidence for a date, if you can’t scare up the scratch for dinner-and-a-movie? Fellas – do you feel women look at you differently if you’re out of work, or in a low-level job? Ladies – do you care whether you or your spouse is “head of the household”? As economic sands continue to shift beneath our feet, does it matter who holds up which half of the sky?