Over the weekend, South Carolina Governor Mark Sanford confessed, in a rambling live statement to the press, that he has been having an affair with a woman in Argentina. Since her husband's bizarre press conference, the Governor's wife, Jenny, has single handedly changed the rulebook for scorned political wives. Gone is the humiliating moment of standing next to the philandering husband in a show of support, the stoned-face silence, the prerequisite week-long sequester in the family home, and the pathological enabling. Instead, Jenny Sanford is exemplifying dignity in the face of disaster, and is putting her children ahead of her husband's ambitions.

Mrs. Sanford's behavior -- including her refusal to cover for her husband when the press first came to their Sullivans Island summer house inquiring about the governor's whereabouts, and her absence as he has faced the press and calls for his resignation alone -- Mrs. Sanford has inspired a strong response from women across the country. "Team Jenny" merchandise, including mugs, bags and t-shirts with tango dancing silhouettes and the tagline, "Don't cry for me Argentina," is popping up everywhere. Clearly, Mrs. Sanford's behavior is meeting with approval from at least some voters -- and mothers.

Shortly after her husband's rambling, narcissistic press conference, the preppy mother of four boys delivered her own perfectly crafted and heartbreakingly maternal statement (no secret now about who the brain was in that outfit!). In it, she uses sacred scripture to remind her cheating husband of his ingratitude, saying, "sons are a gift from the Lord and children a reward from Him." She goes on to say, "I believe that the greatest legacy I will leave behind in this world is...the character of [my] children".

Jenny Sanford is a woman who understands exactly what is at stake, and who is not willing to risk "the potential damage to [her] children." When these things happen to families, especially very public families, we all worry about the children. In this case, however, we all somehow know that those boys are going to turn out all right – thanks to Team Jenny.

Should the government pay those on welfare to stay home and care for their kids?

That's the question Los Angeles officials are asking as the number of unemployed rises and California deals with a budget crises that threatens to land the state in bankruptcy. Governor Schwarzenegger wants to eliminate Cal Works, the state's welfare to work program. LA County Supervisors prefer to make deep cuts and save the program. Their goal: Target the most expensive people.

Currently, California "Welfare to Work" recipients are required to find a job or participate in government funded training or school. While fulfilling the program requirements, the government also covers childcare costs of about $500 per child per month.

The only exception to the work and training requirement are welfare recipients with a child under the age of one. One of the easiest ways to save money is to expand the exemption to include those with a baby under two years of age and those with two or more children under age six. In other words, pay more people to stay home with their kids.

Seems like a good idea -- but how do other parents feel?

Last week, my three oldest kids and I had a date night. We went to a 50s style diner, had hamburgers, fries and milkshakes, and headed to the 7:30 PM show. Not having read any reviews prior, I purchased tickets for Pixar's "Up" fully expecting that I was in for predictable kid's movie fare – you know, sassy animal sidekicks, inside adult jokes that (we hope) go over the kids' heads, and, of course, the prerequisite potty humor.

What I got was a more than a pleasant surprise. "Up" is a rare find. A diamond in a pile of cultural rubbish served up to kids these days. Stripped of much of the cynicism and reliance on bodily functions of so many modern animated films, "Up" is written to respect kids' intelligence and sense of humor. Just as important, it is a first-rate commercial movie that isn't afraid to be wholesome - evidence that films for kids can be highly entertaining and simultaneously reinforce virtues such as love, kindness, empathy, and courage.

Supreme court nominee Sonia Sotomayor says Nancy Drew was her girlhood hero. So do Sandra Day O'Connor, Hillary Clinton, and Laura Bush. I also grew up reading Nancy Drew and can easily say that I was profoundly influenced by the brainy, courageous and beautiful "titian haired" detective. I'm also fairly certain that the purchase of my first car, a used black convertible Volkswagen Cabriolet, was inspired by images of Nancy in her convertible driving around Riverside solving mysteries with her loyal friends, George and Bess.

So who are today's girlhood role models and influences? Miley Cyrus, Lindsay Lohan, Vanessa Hudgens, the cast of MTV's The Hills? What about Bratz Dolls or even Disney's G-rated, but nonetheless vapid Cheetah Girls? What are the chances that these role models will spawn our next Supreme Court justice, Pulitzer winning journalist, or concerned citizen, the way Nancy and her friends did?

The dearth of smart and positive role models is a sad reality for today's girls and teens and a source of frustration for their moms. And there seems to be no reprieve. Just when moms were rejoicing over the end of MTV's shockingly crass "My Super Sweet 16," Bravo rolls out a disturbing new teen reality show this summer called "NYC Prep" that glorifies superficiality, rampant consumerism, and deplorable teen behavior (think "The Real Housewives" franchise for teens). Sadly, too many kids are unsupervised because their parents don't care or are unaware or resigned to what Hollywood dishes out. And it's not just teens. Children as young as 6 and 7 are left to make sense of these images on their own. This is bad news for all of us – even for those of us who do monitor our children's media consumption.

Now that I am a mom who reads Nancy Drew to my own kids, I am more keenly aware of the enduring virtues of the brave detective in this All-American and beloved series. They go beyond her commitment to truth and justice. Nancy and her friends made being square (as in having integrity and being polite, thoughtful and kind) seem cool. What girl doesn't want to be Nancy? Her values are not quaint or outmoded. They are timeless ideals that that we should pass on to our daughters (and sons).

If you haven't done so already, uncover your old collection and lovingly pass it on to your daughter, granddaughter or niece, whatever her age. Bravo is competing for her attention this summer. She deserves better.

Season five of TLC's hit reality show "Jon & Kate Plus Eight" promises to give more insight into the bizarre celebrity turn the Gosselin's lives have taken. Finally, the cameras are turned around so the viewers can see the world as Jon, Kate and the kids see it. From zealous fans at Kate's book signings to front-page tabloid stories and daily run-ins with the paparazzi – even during a mundane trip to purchase birthday party supplies – the show is finally addressing the elephant in the room.

The opening scene of the much-anticipated season premiere shrewdly addressed the salacious rumors of Jon Gosselin's infidelity head on. During an interview on last night's show, Jon said: "I never cheated on Kate. I don't care who believes me. I only know what I know." While it appears that Kate believes him, they are nonetheless separated and considering divorce.

We also finally get the first real admission from the couple that documenting their family has turned into a lucrative business -- a business that threatens to destroy their marriage and the family they once were. Jon admits resentment over quitting his job for the show. Though he says he enjoys spending more time with the kids, he complains about taking care of them while Kate travels extensively on book tours. Kate is quick to note that Jon has "help" when she is gone, but nonetheless felt guilty when one of her kids called her by the babysitter's name after a long trip away.

This season, the couple no longer conducts their narrative interviews together on the couch – they do so individually. And in this first episode, Kate makes birthday party preparations alone because Jon, "wanted to take the weekend off." When Jon shows up for the party, Kate insists that the family pose for a picture. Later, she tears up wondering if that photo might be the last time they have a picture all together.

Kate's new look is also on full display this season and her makeover and accompanying cost of upkeep is the source a lot of blog and tabloid gossip. US Magazine ran an unflattering before and after photo on the cover and even did a story tallying up the cost of her manicures, tanning, and haircuts. Please! Clearly, it is unfair to suggest these are extravagant expenses, for any at-home mom. Moreover, it is the height of hypocrisy for tabloids that incessantly promote and celebrate celebrity moms and their consumption on the one hand to feign outrage when an at-home mom, especially one with a hit television show and best-selling book, succumbs to the cultural pressure.

In my estimation, both Jon and Kate deserve a different kind of criticism – one that belies their insistence throughout last night's show that despite their marriage difficulties, "they always put the kids first." If that were true, then they would put their marriage first because an intact family is the best gift they can give their children. Instead of dishing their troubles and complaints about each other for the show, they ought to shut down the cameras, put the book tour on hold and hole themselves up on their new sprawling estate to do the hard work of saving their marriage! That, Jon and Kate, is putting the kids first. Perhaps, in the end, they will come to the same conclusion -- that they are better off separated. But how can they really be sure while the cameras are still rolling?

With the end of the school year looming, moms are shopping for summer clothes for the kids. But here's something I'll bet you didn't think about when you were picking out sundresses and t-shirts: According to a report in Time magazine, $1.6 million was spent on thong underwear for 7 to 12 year old girls in 2002. Imagine what that figure is today!

If the fact that thong underwear is marketed and sold to girls as young as second grade (or that parents are dumb enough to buy it) makes your blood boil, you may also be seeing the silver lining in the current economic slump. According to a recent article in USA Today, as consumers become more frugal, they are also becoming more discriminating, eschewing trendy clothes for more classic pieces with longer fashion shelf life. And since trendy clothes for girls, tweens, and teens have been increasingly sexy, the recession reaction of designers and retailers is to offer less skin and more value – giving moms something to cheer about in these lean times.

Teens are very susceptible to societal pressures and as trendsetters and magazines promote more tasteful options, they want them too. Inevitably, teen trends trickle down to the younger set. And let's not forget about the Obama factor: The cute and classic styles of our First Daughters are bringing back kid fashions that many parents once feared would be lost forever.

But another factor not discussed in the article is the role of parents. As family budgets tighten, kids have less disposable income to make clothing decisions independent of their parents. Have you noticed that there are fewer unaccompanied kids trolling the malls on the weekends? I believe that more moms are joining their tweens and teens at the mall, checking for quality and along the way, directing their girls away from trampier styles.

Unfortunately, experts predict that when the economy bounces back, more revealing fashion will come back too. For our girls' sake, let's hope that's not the case.

What are you buying for your kids this summer? And are you shopping with them, or sending them to the mall to pick out their own clothes?

My oldest daughter is nine years old and like so many other moms of nine year olds, I spend a lot of my time trying to protect her from a culture that beckons her to prematurely abandon her American Girl dolls for a preternatural sexiness. In my quest to preserve her girlhood by monitoring her television, clothing, and yes, even her friendships, I have occasionally been asked to consider if I am being too controlling.

Likewise, last week when I appeared on CNN.com to discuss the recent FDA decision to make the morning after pill available to 17-year-olds without a prescription or parental permission, I was accused of being too controlling. After all, my opponent contended, it's not my business. Conservatives, he argued, are hypocrites who want the government out of everything but sex. Right back at you, I thought, liberals try to regulate everything but sex.



That is why a recent and thoughtful essay by Mary Eberstadt, titled "Is Food the New Sex?" caught my attention. In it, Eberstadt makes the case that over the last fifty years our culture "has taken long standing morality about sex, and substituted it onto food. The all-you-can-eat buffet is now stigmatized; the sexual smorgasbord is not."

How many parents feel perfectly comfortable moralizing about "good" foods and "bad" foods with their kids, but are uneasy discussing the moral component of sex? These days, Eberstadt notes insightfully, the word "guilt" is more likely to be used in conjunction with a missed workout than with premarital sex.

One of my closest friends lives in Dubai, the Middle East city famous for being a playground for the rich and famous. On any given weekend, America's A-list stars and athletes can be found partying on the man-made palm-shaped islands for which Dubai is renowned. What non-residents might not know is that Dubai's thriving economy is largely fueled by an enormous influx of cheap labor from countries such as India, Bangladesh, and the Philippines, and the presence of these immigrants has significant implications for the family life of its residents – including the families of the many American and European expats who work in Dubai.

Let me explain: At a recent children's birthday party my friend attended with her three year-old daughter, she was the only mom who didn't come with her housekeeper/nanny in tow. As she described it, the hired help sat with the children at the "children's table," where they coaxed their little charges to eat, cleaned up their spills, chased after them, and transitioned them from birthday cake to magician show while the moms (some dressed in heels and glittery nightclub attire – but that's another topic!) socialized and noshed on adult fare and cocktails. According to my friend this was not a unique situation; in Dubai, hired help commonly accompany moms wherever they and their children go.

I have to admit that on the day she told me this story I was rather intrigued, if not envious. I had just had one of those really hard mommy weeks – you know, sick kids, long waits at the doctor's office, unwashed hair, and very, very distant memories of my last adult social outing. The thought of a responsibility-free party accompanied by a full-time "wife," frankly, sounded delightful.

A recent expose involving the child star, Rubina Ali, of the Oscar winning film "Slumdog Millionaire" is bringing to light the plight of our world's poorest children, the victims of parents who are willing to sell them, like cattle, for profit or hope of a better life.

After seeing Rubina's living conditions on Al-Jazeera television, a wealthy Middle Eastern family expressed interest in adopting her. Rubina's father was interested in their offer, but when investigators for the British tabloid, "The News of the World," posing as a Dubai sheikh, also expressed interest -- and offered more money -- Rubina's father and uncle were caught on tape in scandalously callous negotiations for the adorable nine-year old. The transcripts reveal a lot of discussion about money and virtually none about the background of the couple or the safety of his child. In fact, dad and uncle actually brought Rubina to the luxury hotel suite to dine and meet the fake sheikh and his wife. Rubina, however, thought that they were rich fans and had no idea that her father was there with the purpose of selling her.

Sadly, in India, 11 million children are abandoned annually. According to the article, the trafficking of poor Indian children to the Middle East is common in the slums of Mumbai and those who are sold are often forced into child slavery, prostitution, sexual abuse or forced to risk their lives as camel jockeys. It is hard to believe that Rubina's father is completely unaware of the fate of these children.

I personally have seen the poverty of Mumbai first hand. I will never forget the moment I stood on the boardwalk in Mumbai and saw half-clothed and naked toddlers, being led by a five or six year old, with no adult supervision in sight. I watched in disbelief as they dug through piles of trash for food and scraps. The images haunt me even more now that I have children of my own. This is poverty beyond anything seen in America and it is difficult to comprehend the choices that face those who live in these conditions.

Not surprisingly, the blogs are heating up with debate about Rubina's father, the investigation, and even the director of Slumdog Millionaire, Danny Boyle. Some are questioning whether Boyle has a responsibility to the stars who were plucked from Mumbai's slums and ended up going to Hollywood Oscar parties and Disneyland and then back to the sewage infested slums they came from.

The only good I can see in all of this is that had it not been for Rubina's fame, we would not be talking about child trafficking. The name-less, face-less child victims suddenly have a face and a name. That's the first step.


Note: Looking for steps? Check out this site for 21 ways you can help stop child trafficking. There are plenty of other sites and organizations. Find one that speaks to you and donate!

Do you think your 17-year-old daughter should be able to take the morning after pill without your knowledge or consent? How about without a doctor's visit or even a prescription?

Well, last week, a New York District Judge ordered the FDA to lower the age of prescription and consent-free access to the morning after pill from 18 to 17 years of age. But Judge Korman isn't satisfied. He wants the morning after pill to be available (without consent or prescription) to all girls, regardless of age, and is pushing the FDA to do just that.

In my view, the decision to make Plan B available over the counter to girls is wrong on many fronts. The morning after pill is not an aspirin! There can be serious side affects such as nausea, cramping and even bleeding – not to mention the mental strain of taking a high dosage of hormones. Without a prescription, many teens will endure these symptoms alone, without the guidance or support of a doctor or parent. This is an unnecessary and unacceptable risk.

Without a prescription, sexually active girls will also bypass potentially life-saving STD screening tests. In addition, Plan B's over-the-counter status makes it especially attractive to sexual predators who may coerce young girls to take it, the same way many of them force their young victims into abortions.

As a mom, the most troubling problem with this decision is that it undermines my ability to parent my child and just at a time when teachers, politicians, and the president himself are pleading for parents to take more responsibility for their kids and their social lives.

Why wouldn't the government want parents involved in the medical matters of their children? Do they not want young girls to seek their parents' counsel when they find themselves in a difficult situation? I presume that advocates of this decision are worried that some girls may be afraid to tell their parents. But as parents we understand that our children will, at one time or another, do things we are not particularly happy with or proud of – and that may involve discovering that our child is sexually active. Yet, as parents, we need to know these things so we can counsel and love our children through these circumstances according to our family's values. That's our job!

For parents who want to parent, this ruling is yet another government intrusion on the parent-child relationship, Sadly, it will only encourage girls to bypass mom and dad when they need them most.

"This is a primary school, not Guantanamo Bay!"

That is how one mom responded when she found out that her daughter's school lunch box was being inspected by government officials intent on enforcing healthy food standards in British schools.

Who's behind these lunchbox inspections? Local city council "sustainability commissions," who want foods they deem too high in sugar, salt and fat confiscated in schools. Who is doing the confiscating? Government-trained inspectors who angry parents are now calling "mealtime Gestapos." If they find a child to be in violation of the healthy food standards set by the commission, the parent will be contacted by the school, presumably to be given a lecture on how to pack a healthy lunch.

Let me start by saying that it's certainly true that many parents pack deplorable school lunches (to be fair, plenty of school hot lunches are equally bad). I also empathize with teachers who swear that processed and sugary foods interfere with learning in class. However, confiscating kid's snacks is not only intrusive, it sends the wrong message since, in moderation, even chocolate is good for you.

Clearly, obesity is a national problem, both in the US and the UK, and the government has a role in promoting and educating kids and parents about healthier eating habits. But no matter how well-intentioned, the government cannot and should not take the place of parental judgment. What I feed my kids is my business.

Last week, Alice Waters, the California chef who is credited with promoting the slow food movement in America, was interviewed on CBS's 60 Minutes. In response to Leslie Stahl's complaint that organic food is too expensive, Waters said, "We make decisions everyday about what we're going to eat and some people want to buy Nike shoes -- two pairs, and other people want to eat [$4.00 a pound] Bronx grapes, and nourish themselves. I pay a little extra, but this is what I want to do."

Frankly, I couldn't agree more. In my own home, eating healthy, home-cooked meals is a priority and we cut back on other things in order to eat almost exclusively organic, locally grown meats and produce.

The point is that I choose to feed my family this way and the satisfaction I derive from doing this would be substantially less if it was government mandated. These days, the scope and power of the U.S. government is growing at an alarming rate, and it may only be a matter of time until our kids are having their lunches examined, too. This mom of five warns: Stay out of our kid's school lunches!

In the summer, my kids have a lot of freedom to play outside and generate their own fun. In the winter, however, the bitter cold (it's almost zero degrees today in northern Wisconsin!) means a lot of time spent indoors. To entertain themselves, my kids play dress up, knit, paint, color, play board games, and make things out of play dough, modeling clay and scraps of felt, cardboard, pipe cleaners, and egg cartons that I keep in a box in the basement. Sometimes, though, they just want to watch a movie or catch a show on television.

These days, with all the great movie review websites for parents (my personal favorite is kidsinmind.com) it's quite easy to see what you're getting when you rent a film for your kids. Television, however, is a different matter. Gone are the days when parents could trust that a television show geared for kids or families would necessarily be wholesome. That's a real bummer for me because I can't always be in the room monitoring whether every story line on a show is age-appropriate. My solution? To Tivo shows that I know and trust – namely, the shows I grew up with, like The Brady Bunch, Leave it to Beaver, The Beverly Hillbillies and Gilligan's Island. Oh, they also love The Smurfs.

I have been amazed by just how much my kids love these shows. Till I watched a few with them, I had forgotten how perfectly fun the jokes and plots lines were for kids (Bobby and Cindy want to break the see-saw world record!). My kids are also surprisingly unfazed by the retro fashion and furnishings and it's even been the catalyst for some interesting conversations about the way things were "in the olden day " (their words, not mine!).

Before long, it will be warm again and I can give them the age-old motherly command to "Go outside and play!" Till then, I feel good about letting them take in some clean entertainment and answering some unexpected questions like, "What does groovy mean?"

Do you use your Tivo to monitor what your kids are watching? What shows are you recording for kid-friendly viewing?

As soon as Bristol Palin's interview with Greta Van Susteren aired last week on FOXNews, cable news channels and blogs began burning up with the juicy revelation that Sarah Palin's teenage daughter believes that abstinence is "not realistic at all." CNN.com even had a red flag ticker that read: "Watch Bristol Palin say abstinence is 'not realistic at all.'"

More Work, Fewer Perks for Moms This Year Michael Phelps Should Face Consequences for Pot Free School Breakfast Enables Failing Parents?

I'm just glad that I saw the whole interview before reading the blogs because Bristol's "abstinence" comment was not necessarily the headline for me. For me, this interview painted a bigger picture of the Palin family and I was touched by the love they share. This is a family that takes care of each other and has stuck together despite what has unquestionably been a challenging past six months.

I found Bristol to be a refreshingly honest, albeit unsophisticated, young woman who is (no surprise) both overwhelmed and overjoyed by the birth of her child. Through timid, valley-girl vernacular and nervous laughter, we learned about her struggle to deal with night-feedings, high school, and the sudden change of plans and focus that the birth of a child entails. She convincingly told the audience that being a teen mom is not glamorous, and yet it was easy to see that she is in love with her baby.

After watching her interview, including a surprise visit from her mom, I came away with an admiration for how this very real, imperfect, and loving family is handling this difficult situation. The Palins "circled the wagons" (Sarah's words) and are fully supporting their daughter, who made a courageous and thoroughly selfless decision to bring her child into this world. Grandma Palin admits, "it's not the most ideal situation, but certainly you make the most of it."

No, it won't be easy, and Bristol clearly knows she is not prepared to handle it alone. "This is a role for families to pitch in and help," says Sarah Palin. When Bristol tells Greta that she wishes she had waited another ten years, it was heartbreaking to hear the tinge of regret in her voice. "I wished it would have happened in, like, 10 years so I could have a job and an education and be, like, prepared and have my own house and stuff."

Critics like Salon.com's Rebecca Traister will always find fault with the Palins, but when faced with life's challenges -- an unplanned pregnancy, or in Sarah's case, news that she was carrying a Down Syndrome child (90% of which end in abortion) -- this is a family that lives their values. It was Mother Theresa who said: "It is a great poverty to decide that a child must die so that you may live as you wish." By that measuring stick, the Palins indeed are rich.

If seeing baby-faced Alfie Patten, 13, and 15-year-old Chantelle Steadman posing with their newborn baby for a celebrity-style photo spread in the British tabloids were not depressing enough, now as many as eight other boys in their neighborhood have stepped forward to say that they too could be the father of poor little one-week old Maisie. One of the boys is even demanding a DNA test.

Every day as more and more details surface, we begin to see a picture of the kind of moral and family breakdown that robs children like Alfie and Chantelle of the pleasures of an authentic childhood, for the false "freedom" of sex. And while these kids seem to say the right things -- "I know I'm young, but I plan to be a good dad. I think we'll be good parents. I'll have to work extra hard at school." -- there's undoubtedly a disturbing and telling sense of shamelessness in the way their families have permitted them to exploit their predicament for tabloid fame.

Even a cursory read of this dysfunctional soap opera will lead to one glaring deficiency in these kids' lives -- parental supervision! Chantelle was permitted to have boys spend the night at her house, and virtually all of the boys' parents claim that they thought their son was at a "mate's" house, not Chantelle's. With clueless and lazy parents like that, it doesn't take a lot of imagination to wonder what kind of smutty television, movies, video games these kids were ingesting in the hours they spent on their own, which in all likelihood contributed to their sexual activity. In this day and age, protecting our children from an overly and overtly sexualized culture is a full-time job, even in the best of circumstances. Here we see what happens when lax parenting meets a decaying youth culture.

Sadly, this problem is not exclusive to Britain. Nor should we blame poverty (although apparently the families in this particular story live in subsidized public housing and receive public assistance). Being poor is not an excuse for bad parenting. To say so insults the poor and working class and and belies facts: plenty of people, including my own parents, were raised in poorer homes and were taught morality and decency. Common sense and morals are not a factor of income. There simply is no substitute for good parenting and strong families – not even a whole lot of government money or well-intentioned social programs.

Iain Duncan Smith, a former Tory leader and director of the Center for Social Justice in England describes the situation perfectly: "This is a tragic example of the nation's social decline. I don't know about these particular families but too many dysfunctional families in Britain today have children growing up where anything goes. It exemplifies the point we have been making about broken Britain. It's not being accusative, it's about pointing out the complete collapse in some parts of society of any sense of what's right and wrong."

Amen to that!

When the economy stinks, moms pay the price! A recent article in the Washington Times examined why the recession disproportionately impacts moms: during hard times, families "tend to fall back on traditional roles." Why? Because the first things to go when a family cuts back are household tasks that they once outsourced. From cleaning services, to tailoring, to sending Dad's shirts out for laundering, chances are that mom is the one "picking up the slack."

Take, for example, an exceptionally busy weeknight. During a recession, it's less likely to be remedied with take-out, which means more cooking and cleaning for mom. Sure, it's better for the family's waistline, but it's harder on women who are already doing more than their share of household chores.

And that's not all: just as the workload increases, moms can count on less perks to rejuvenate and recharge their batteries. To the uninitiated, manicures, pedicures, and the Friday night babysitter are frivolous luxuries. To moms in the trenches, they are little lifelines.

However, cutting back does not necessarily mean you have to give up on you! Maybe you can't recuperate at the spa, but you can (sort of) recreate the experience if you send dad and the kids to the park, movies, or grandma's house and splurge on a few drug store spa finds. If you can't afford a sitter but desperately need some adult alone time with your spouse, find a budget conscious friend who's willing to swap nights with you. Miss that extra help with household chores? Enlist the kids! They may be more willing than you think to pitch in when you explain the financial situation. Even if you have to pay your twelve year old to clean out the hallway closet, it's probably a lot cheaper than hiring help.

A return to resourcefulness is one of the unintended upsides of this down economy. As you scale back, don't budget yourself off of your priority list. Instead, find clever ways to get that pampered feeling so that you don't wind up feeling like Cinderella -- before she slipped into the lost glass slipper!