The story profiled two women: Chelsea Nelson of Mountainburg, Arkansas, and Donna Ings of Lexington, Massachusetts. Nelson, aged twenty-one, recently started work as a waitress at a truck stop. Depending on how many tips she earns, she makes between seven and eight dollars per hour. Ings, aged forty-seven, is working as a home health aide for a healthcare company making ten dollars per hour. Both women had to search high and low for jobs: Nelson, who is married with a two-year-old son, moved her family all the way to California in a fruitless search for a job. Ings was out of work for a year before she found her position. Both women are thrilled to have found positions in such a difficult market, but they are financially struggling due to having taken significant pay cuts from the jobs they had in the past. They’ve supposedly beaten the odds, but they remain worried about supporting themselves and their families. Ings formerly worked as an executive assistant for a wholesale tuxedo distributor, and Nelson used to be a secretary.

In the United States, the rate of Americans on unemployment insurance assistance remains over nine percent. With the amount of citizens out of work so high, there has been little time or energy to devote to the question of the quality of the jobs that these people might hope to get. Every hoped-for recovery has so far panned out, meaning essentially that the focus remains on simply getting people back into the job market. The full extent of underemployment and insufficient employment might not be realized until long after the ravages of this recession have ended, the Times pointed out.

One of the factors affecting the quality of jobs, it was indicated, is a trend in job growth that has been in place since well before this recession started. The best jobs, those with high salaries and great benefits, were definitely growing – but they have always required a lot of education, training, and, sometimes, experience. On the other hand, jobs in the service sector were also burgeoning: jobs requiring almost no training, schooling, or special skills, but which paid only very modest salaries. In other words, middle-class jobs have been in short supply since long before overall joblessness became an issue. The recession only took that trend and amplified it.

People lost jobs in all areas of the spectrum, but those working in mid-level jobs (nurses, secretaries, office support staff, etc.) never had enough jobs to gain back their previous status level. According to a joint paper by the Center for American Progress and the Hamilton Project, the years between 2007 and 2009 saw very few changes in the total number of “high-skill” and “low-skill” positions, but a sharp drop off in those jobs classified as “middle-skill.” Now, workers from all former skill levels have found themselves competing for the low-skill positions.

It’s been found that the most job growth in recent days has happened in segments of the economy where wages tend to be “low to middling.” A massive number of the jobs available today have incomes of less than fifteen dollars per hour. Experts like Annette Bernhardt, policy director for the National Employment Law Project, have called the difference between lost jobs and those available currently to be “staggering.” Simply said, there is almost no way that someone working in a relatively-comfortable middle-skill job before the economic crash would be able to get a job that well-paid again these days. The positions simply aren’t there. Bernhardt was quoted in the article as worrying about how “working families [would] have a way to support themselves” if this trend towards “bottom-heavy job creation” perseveres.

Historically, recessions have been particularly harsh on the poorly-educated. What happens is that people with better education, qualifications, and experience generally get re-employed the fastest after a period of unemployment, because they fill in all the availabilities on the low end of the job availability scale, edging out those low-skill workers even though they are technically overqualified for the position. During the Great Recession, it is true that those workers with the least education seem to have been hit the hardest, with their periods of joblessness lasting longer. Interestingly enough, however, it’s been found that middle-skill workers ultimately suffer the most when you take into account how many of them have had to settle for jobs that don’t pay them nearly enough. It’s a problem unique to this group of people.

Take Ms. Ings, for instance. During sunnier days before her lay-off, she comfortably supported herself and her now-adult daughter with her salary at the tuxedo wholesaler. She earned over sixteen dollars an hour, and had what she describes as a “comfortable” life. Ings, who never got child support, stresses that she felt it was her job as a good mother to make sure she always had a good job to support her daughter. She was laid off in March 2009, at which point she says that she fully expected to find another “corporate job” with a similar pay grade. Little did she know, however, that times had changed and that it wasn’t that easy – the people offering jobs comparable to her old one now wanted workers with at least a bachelor’s degree. Ings, a high school graduate, could no longer compete with the flood of her unemployed peers, many of whom had better credentials than she did.

Ings decided to obtain her certified nursing assistant (CNA) certificate, so that she could apply with home healthcare companies. She considers herself lucky to have found a position with the Home Instead homecare company, which is one of the few employers in Lexington to have been hiring steadily. Home healthcare is booming as an industry, since the number of sick people out there is not impacted in any way by the recession. Home Instead has created twenty-four hundred jobs nationally this year. Ings was happy to get the position, but her drastic pay cut has been stressful, she says. She works fifty hours every week, and has been financially struggling – and that’s without health benefits. Shortly, she’ll become eligible for insurance coverage through Home Instead, at which point even more money will be deducted from her paycheck. Ings frets that she’ll be bringing virtually “nothing” home as pay, and worries constantly about the future.

Nelson, for her part, says that she constantly rues her decision to quit college when she was eighteen years old. Her former job as a secretary making twelve dollars per hour wasn’t bad, but she had a very hard time finding a replacement job when she was laid off, she says. Compounding the trouble was the fact that Nelson’s husband also struggled to find steady work, and they have a small child. The family moved temporarily to California to be close to family members in the hopes that they would find a more amenable job market. That didn’t work out, and they ended up back in Arkansas. Kenneth Nelson got factory work making eight dollars per hour, but Chelsea struggled hard until the waitressing gig came along. The small, young family is currently living with Chelsea’s mother as they scrimp and save money for their own home someday. Chelsea remains pessimistic that their dream will ever come true. With the “jobs [they] have,” she points out, it’s hard enough just to get by.

These stories are hard to hear, and are so emblematic of the struggles being faced by countless American individuals and families today. It’s tough when you’ve been on unemployment for a year or more to not jump on a job as soon as you are offered one, but few people stop to consider that their financial stress might have no end in sight. Although the rules of unemployment insurance state that beneficiaries may not turn down a valid job offer, many people purposefully prolong their time on benefits in a futile quest to find employment that will get them an income close to what they were making before. It’s a sad fact that most never will.

This is, of course, a vicious cycle. People not making enough money are likely to continue being late on their mortgage payments, car loan payments, and credit card bills. They are less likely to spend money in an economy that badly needs some economic stimulation. Ultimately, this will stall the creation of more new jobs. Is there really any question why people say that things really aren’t getting any better, despite the promises of politicians?

Obama called out Republican lawmakers for what he called unjustly partisan politics being used to block a bill that is intended to aid small business owners to grow their enterprises and to hire new workers. Speaking in Washington from the White House Rose Garden just before what would turn out to be an emotional trip to New Orleans to commemorate the fifth anniversary of Hurricane Katrina making landfall. Obama claimed that the minority representation in the House wouldn’t even permit the bill to get so far as going up for a vote, despite the fact that the would-be law in question “is fully paid for, it will not add to the deficit, [and that] there is no reason to hold it except for partisan politics.”

Republicans, for their part, have referred to the bill as misguided. Obama insists that the bill is absolutely necessary, and should be approved as soon as possible. The President says that his immediate goals for the country include boosting the middle class and “promoting the growth we need to get out people back to work.”

According to the National Center for Health Statistics, there was only thirteen point five births per every one thousand people in America last year, compared to thirteen point nine in 2008 and fourteen point three births per thousand in 2007. Sociologists say that this phenomenon is neither new nor unprecedented. Andrew Cherlin, a sociologist quoted by CNN in their coverage of the story, claimed that a lower birth rate is not unexpected when people feel “unsure of their financial future.” Cherlin, who is affiliated with research university Johns Hopkins, claims that this trend has perpetuated itself in previous recessions, although obviously not to such an extent. The greater the economic crisis, the greater the number of families who will elect to postpone childbearing, he posits. Cherlin says that it will take some time after a hopeful economic improvement to help people feel comfortable again with the idea of bringing more children into the world. That will likely be a few years, he says.

He points out that, during the Great Depression, as many as one in five American women never had a baby. The United States could easily hit that number again, he warns. Although many couples who put off growing their families right now will just have children at a later age, some will wait too long and not have any at all.

Many factors could make individuals and families feel discomforted by the thought of having children right now. Jobs are scarce, as I said earlier, and there are legitimate concerns about being able to financially support the existing members of a household in the increasingly-likely event of financial disaster – let alone another small child. There is also the fact that people are very uncomfortable with buying homes at the moment, which is bad for those who believe that kids should have a “real” home in which to live. And, of course, there is the effect that financial woes are having on relationships. Couples who fight all the time due to monetary stresses are unlikely to feel inclined to have a baby together, you know what I mean?

These tough financial times are hard on everyone, but parents of small children feel especially stressed due to the fact that they have the full dependence of an immature family member relying upon them as well. As a mother of two, I can completely relate to this. It makes me sad, however, that couples who might dream of having a child would have to make the (smart, undoubtedly) choice to forego pregnancy because they are worried about what the future will bring. America needs some fresh hope, and we need it soon.

Wedding insurance wouldn’t have been a big deal for hubby and myself, since we had a guest list of less than forty and a microscopic budget. One of my best high school friends, however, got married that same year surrounded by professionally-arranged red roses, wore a designer dress of vintage lace and pearls, and walked down the aisle to the airy sounds of a live string quartet. She had well over one hundred guests and six bridesmaids. There was an open bar, and we danced until midnight instead of eleven because they had paid for the venue to stay open for an extra hour. Her wedding cost over forty thousand dollars – I asked! – and while I don’t know if she had wedding insurance, it might have definitely been a good idea in her case. Weddings in this day and age can be divided into two distinct categories – the drive-through ‘I do’s’ in Vegas / the backyard hoedowns (like mine), and then the massive June-fantasy ceremonies like you see in bridal magazines. For the first category, we have faith and crossed fingers. For the latter, we have wedding insurance.

Wedding insurance protects you on your big day against a variety of possible marital mishaps. If getting to the church on time doesn’t happen, your insurance plan can cover you for setting a replacement appointment with the pastor. If your hand-picked gourmet caterer gets a nasty notice from the health department within days of your reception, the insurer will pay to get you a speedy replacement chef to whip up your guests’ choice of seared Chilean sea bass or filet mignon with a mushroom demi glaze. Many conventional insurers have added wedding insurance polices to their standard menu, with more and more companies making the leap every year.

It’s a reflection of the rising cost of getting hitched these days, say experts. The price of the average wedding has dipped somewhat since the halcyon days before the recession hit, but it’s still up there with the comparable price of a new car. Conde Nast, publisher of Brides magazine, says that nearly one-third of all American lovebirds pay for their own wedding, and thirty-six percent will exceed their budget. It’s not hard to do, considering how much crap the wedding industry tries to tell brides and grooms that they “need,” ranging from professionally embossed stationary (save-the-date cards, invites and RSVP cards, table cards, and thank you notes) to out-of-season hothouse blooms in the attendant bouquets, designer silk lingerie for under the bride’s gown to an aisle runner dyed to match the maid of honor’s gown, and a vintage piece of jewelry to pin to the bridal bouquet. Don’t even get me started on the cost of an exotic honeymoon at an all-inclusive resort or how much it costs to rent the darned fancy chair covers and coordinating tie-backs! A typical wedding insurance premium ranges from ninety-five to over one thousand dollars, based upon the cost of your wedding and how much coverage you elect to purchase. If you are having a big white wedding, this may amount to little more than a drop in your bucket.

Wedding insurance covers a variety of incidents that could mar your big day. The first of those is liability. If your junior bridesmaid trips and breaks an ankle on her high heels, or if a sodden guest has one too many Cape Cods and hits the floor when reaching for an imaginary canapé, you would be covered much in the same way as traditional liability insurance under a homeowner’s policy. Whether you need this specific coverage for your event depends on the venue at which you are getting married and/or having your reception. Some places include this kind of insurance in the rental cost, while others will require you to purchase your own insurance.

Your wedding venue itself will also be protected under your insurance policy. What if your childhood church where you’ve dreamed since practically birth of walking down the aisle should happen to burn down the night before your ceremony? Or if a hurricane/earthquake/tornado should happen to trash your reception venue? Acts of God that destroy your reception and/or ceremony are covered by insurance. You might have to postpone your wedding until the venue of choice can be repaired, or you might have to wait for a slot to open up on a Saturday evening in your second choice locale, but the costs will be covered.

Another facet of wedding insurance that might be purchased is coverage for the health and wellbeing of all the main players in your event – think mom, dad, yourself or your soon-to-be spouse, or a member of the wedding party. Some wedding policies include insurance against death or illness. If your honey gets a wicked case of food poisoning from the buffet at the rehearsal dinner, your insurance will pick up the cost of any “non-refundable” deposits on service providers and cover the price tag for switching your wedding date. Likewise, if –heaven forbid, because this is serious- any one of your parents should pass away in the days before your union, the insurer would eat the cost of postponing everything until your head was clear and you could move forward.

Even your wedding dress could be insured with one of these policies! One of the most common claims against wedding insurance policies is on bridal gowns that were lost when the doors of the boutique were barred due to a sudden bankruptcy – especially in these turbulent economic times. One of my friends – not the one with the roses and the string quartet – was hysterically crying less than three days before her happy day when she showed up for the final fitting of her very expensive designer wedding gown at the bridal shop she’d selected, and found that the owner had skipped town when the entire chain went broke. My friend had to settle for a borrowed gown and take the deadbeat dressmaker to court afterwards, but a bride with wedding insurance could have been all set to purchase a replacement. Likewise, damages to the groomsmen’s rented tuxedos are also covered under this type of plan: a very good thing for the moment when your new husband’s frat brothers decide to jump in the fountain outside the reception hall.

Your insurance will also protect your wedding gifts. If you are having a big and spendy ceremony, this can really mean something. It’s not at all unusual for well-off brides to register for china that costs two hundred dollars a place setting, or for artisan stand mixers (this DIY, thrifty bride was even guilty of that one!) that run four to five hundred dollars a pop. If a shady reception venue employee were to make off with your engraved sterling silver picture frames or Tiffany cobalt vase that you received as a gift, your insurance will pay for a replacement.

Other types of venders are also covered under wedding insurance. What if your wedding photographer’s camera gets dunked in a fountain (possibly by a rowdy groomsman), or if the pictures all come out blurry? Your insurance will pay for the cost of hiring someone new and restaging the pictures. What if the bakers of your wedding cake disappear with your deposit? Your insurance will pay for a stat replacement. Your musicians get ill? Book someone new, your insurer will pick up the tab. In short, if you are paying a lot for your wedding, I humbly submit that you might not be able to afford to go WITHOUT insurance!

That doesn’t mean, however, that there are not exceptions to what wedding insurance will cover. While these policies are meant to give brides and grooms total piece of mind as they approach the happiest day of their lives, that doesn’t mean that your insurer will blindly pay any claim that you submit. One big and notable example of a situation that would NOT be covered by wedding insurance? Runaway brides or grooms who let cold feet get the best of them. Insurers insist that this exception is designed to weed out cases of fraud, and is also not under their purview since a change of heart is fully preventable and any form of insurance is designed to protect against circumstances beyond your control. Now, I should add that certain wedding insurance companies have started to amend this policy somewhat, so that completely innocent parties with a financial stake in the wedding can be reimbursed for losses suffered as the result of a runaway bride or groom. Let’s say that the father of the bride has fulfilled his traditional duty and forked up the cost for a lavish reception. If his would-be son-in-law jilts his little girl, Daddy might get reimbursed for his losses under certain plans. (The cost of a shotgun and a few bullets is not covered, before you even ask.)

Existing medical conditions are also not covered in policies that protect health and wellbeing. If a parent has an outstanding cardiac history, their heart attack will probably not be considered a covered event for postponing the wedding. A first-time heart attack would be covered, of course.

There are ways to protect your investment in your wedding that don’t require the purchase of specialized insurance, even if no one method is all-inclusive or quite as reassuring. The Better Business Bureau’s recommendations include exhaustive preliminary research on your venders before you sign any contracts. How long has your bridal boutique been open? Who are your photographer’s referrals? Does your catering company have a longstanding bill of health from the health inspector? What’s the storm history for your wedding date in the town where you’ll be saying your vows? Knowing all these things can help you make the best decisions possible for making common-sense choices in choosing the people and things that will help your wedding come together. That’s not to say that it’s impossible that something completely unforeseen will happen to trash your big day, but sometimes it’s all about minimizing risks.

You should also make sure that your deposits are no larger than they have to be. Don’t put any extra down, in other words. Keeping your deposits as small as possible will minimize your losses in the event that your wedding needs to be called off or postponed. You can’t avoid some non-refundable deposits, but minimizing them is certainly your best bet. Likewise, experts say that you should use a credit card whenever possible to pay for aspects of your wedding with the potential to go wrong, so that you can dispute the charges for services that sucked or products that didn’t do their job. That way, if your food makes people sick or your gown rips as soon as “Here Comes the Bride” starts playing, you can request money back from your card issuer. Save all your receipts so that you have potential future documentation if need be.

Look, I know that I’ve said a lot of silly things about big weddings in this post, but my advice as to how you can avoid losing money on wedding disasters is to be very careful about how you are spending it in the first place. Is it really worth tens of thousands of dollars to have a huge wedding, when the whole point of a marriage ceremony is to celebrate your love and union? You should never go into debt for a wedding, and that’s not just my advice – that’s everyone’s advice.

In June, the MHA program granted a total of one and a half billion dollars to five states where the mean home price had decreased by twenty percent or more – California, Florida, Michigan, Nevada, and Arizona. August saw five additional states with a high level of unemployment getting an extra six hundred million dollars. These first two sums of cash were intended for any foreclosure-prevention initiatives that the states in question felt would be suited to their individual needs. In contrast, the newest grants can only be used for subsidizing mortgage payments for homeowners who are either unemployed or underemployed. All the original five “hardest-hit” states except Arizona will be receiving the additional funds, which were distributed on the basis if states’ unemployment rate –to- population ratios.

The Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Emergency Mortgage Relief Program is aimed at those homeowners with difficulty paying their mortgages due to involuntary joblessness, underemployment (i.e. – those who have only been able to find part-time work), or medical problems that have kept them away from the workplace. Homeowners must be at least three months behind on their mortgages to apply to receive federal loans to help pay their mortgages for a maximum of two years or fifty thousand dollars. The loans might be able to be forgiven under certain circumstances. HUD announced that certain communities outside of the hardest-hit states may be eligible for funds under the program as well.

The Obama administration has been widely criticized for its abundant spending in the area of foreclosure prevention across the country, with many conservative taxpayers jeering that the government is throwing away money hand over fist on subsidizing the lifestyle of those who a.) don’t want to work, b.) got in over their heads on a mortgage due to stupidity and greed, or c.) aren’t willing to make the same sacrifices as others to stay afloat without help. Yet others have argued that the program isn’t expansive enough, and that there are many areas outside of the “hardest-hit” states that need just as much help, as well as renters plagued by the same issues with affording housing as those that own their own homes. It’s hard to say whether this measure will do any more for the seemingly endless tide of foreclosures than its predecessors in Congress have accomplished, but many people across the country will doubtlessly be keeping their fingers crossed.

For that reason, the Cadillac Escalade tops the list of highest insurance payouts as a result of theft. These cars are frequently stolen because they are associated with luxury status, but also because they are expensive to begin with and frequently tricked out with premium features (like custom wheels, premium sound systems, and fancy navigation devices) that up their replacement cost even more. One of every four Escalades costs forty thousand dollars or more to replace, and the average claim cost hovers around twelve thousand dollars. The Chevy Corvette z06 is less-frequently stolen, but costs more to replace at over forty-one thousand dollars.

On the other hand, Mini Coopers, Toyota Priuses, and Nissan Muranos come in first on cars with the fewest or cheapest insurance claims. Experts say that “greener” vehicles and those “boring” sedans are much more likely to be targeted by thieves and troublemakers. Other cars at less risk for theft include the Toyota Sienna minivan, the Subaru Impreza wagon, and the Volvo S80.

When Bardwil was arrested and booked, he claims that a member of New York’s Finest stole his beloved chunk of diamonds and emeralds. He got his insurance company, Chubb Indemnity Insuranec Company, to sue the city for having allegedly “”breached, failed and violated its duties and obligations as (custodian) of property entrusted to its care” by not returning the massive belt buckle o’ jewels to Bardwil’s possession. The company had paid out the claim on Bardwil’s buckle, and is pursuing the city for the chunk of change they forked up to continue holding up Bardwil’s pants. I myself wonder what on earth anyone would do with a doubtlessly distinctive jewel-encrusted, custom belt buckle that did not belong to them, but I guess that’s not the point!

One of the most obvious ways of wasting money is on impulse spending. Go figure, this is also one of the hardest forms of money-wasting to break oneself of. Are you prone to whip out your wallet whenever something desirable catches your eye? Don’t beat yourself up; we are all programmed to engage in a certain amount of wish fulfillment. The problem is that all these spur-of-the-moment purchases add up… and quickly! Did you know that a full two-third of purchase decisions are made at the store, and over half these purchases are impulse buys? A purchase is classified as an impulse if you are made to feel like you need the item (especially as a result of marketing strategies like product placement and advertising) and you don’t really need the item. If you are especially prone to impulse purchases, you need to get stricter with yourself in considering the vital difference between wants and needs in life. If you go to the grocery store, for instance, you should take a list and stick strictly to it… no deviations allowed! The grocery store is one area where little impulse buys can quickly add up to one monster of a bill. Working on your self-discipline is the best and only way to curb your unplanned purchases!

Another fairly frivolous way of blowing your money is on services and memberships that you don’t need. How many of us splashed out on a gym membership as the result of a particularly ambitious New Year’s Eve resolution, only to have our workout clothes gathering dust in the wardrobe? Is that money being directly debited from your account every month, despite the fact that you haven’t visited in months? How about that five bucks a month that you shell out on an insurance policy for your credit card? Experts agree that these are massive money-sucks. Get off your butt and cancel both! Make sure that you know exactly how long your contract lasts and what termination penalties you will be on the hook for. Also in this category? Spouses and domestic partners who carry contracts with different cell phone providers. Do what you must to get a family plan, and save some serious cash!

Another way that many of us blow money without realizing it is on bank fees. Have you ever noticed just how much of your paycheck that you throw away on charges from your financial institution? They are almost endless! Some banks have fees for falling below the minimum required balance in your bank account. All accounts charge for overdraft and non-sufficient funds. You can also get shafted on fees when you visit the ATM, especially if the machine you visit is not branded by your own bank. Knowing your bank’s fee schedule and taking pains to ensure you don’t rack up any fees is paramount. The minimum balance requirement is easy enough – just find a bank that offers free checking, and has no minimum balances. Either that, or scrupulously watch your account ledger. Don’t keep a checkbook? It might be time to start! As for overdrafts, this is also easy enough to avoid – and not just by (again) watching your check register like a hawk. Federal banking reform has given American banking customers the right to opt out of overdraft “protection,” and this is absolutely something that you should do. If you don’t have the money in your account to cover a purchase, you cannot make the purchase. It’s really just that simple. If you end up at the register with your card declined because you didn’t keep track of your purchases, then you will probably have a really good reminder of why you should be more vigilant next time! As for ATM fees, avoid those machines like the plague whenever possible. You can get cash in other ways – visiting your own bank, or getting cash back from the cashier when you make a purchase with your debit card at the grocery store or pharmacy.

Carrying needless or redundant insurance coverage is another way that you can be dumping your hard-earned money down the drain and possibly not even knowing it! In a day and age where insurance is very expensive, make sure that you are not paying for more insurance that you need. A great example from a money-saving blog I occasionally read was this: a woman in her forties who has had a hysterectomy really has no need for maternity coverage on her health insurance, does she? Nor does this advice just apply to medical insurance! Car insurance is an area where many people are footing the bill for redundant coverage without even realizing it. You might be paying a few dollars extra for rental car coverage when this is something that is covered by your credit card. Or you could have shelled out for insurance on your cell phone, when it is widely agreed by experts that these policies are nothing but a waste of money.

Interesting enough, however, not carrying ENOUGH insurance can also lead to you wasting money in a big way. If you have skimped on your policy in the hopes of keeping your premium manageable, then you might be setting yourself up for financial disaster if you should happen to have a catastrophe take place. Scrimping on your auto policy or penny pinching with a higher deductible will certainly bite you in the rear if you are in a bad accident and don’t have all the coverage you need to be thoroughly taken care of, AND you have to pay one thousand dollars to get your ride fixed. Experts advise you to create an emergency fund with all the deductibles you could possibly need for your various types of insurance. If you have the cash squirreled away, then by all means feel free to go with a higher deductible in the hopes of saving money every month. You can find the right balance of saving money and covering yourself against further disaster, you just have to look for the line.

This probably doesn’t come as a surprise to you if you are a regular reader of this blog, but carrying a balance on your credit card(s) from month to month is also a terrible way of wasting money. The uneducated might view spending on a credit card as a smart way of financing big purchases, or even just the smaller components of the lavish lifestyle you wish that you had. You can buy whatever you want, and then pay it off over time. Great idea, right? WRONG! If you pay only the minimum (or even just slightly more) each month, you are throwing away money hand over fist on interest payments. Those payments do exactly nothing for you, other than making your bank fat with the spoils of your paycheck. To maximize the use of your own money, pay off your credit card balance in full every single month! If you have a high balance, NOW is the time to formulate a plan for how you can quickly pay down your debt and regain control of your own bank account.

If you have read all this, then hopefully you have had something of an awakening as to all the ways we spend needless money without even realizing it. The saddest part is that this is not even a comprehensive list! Unfortunately, there are many ways that we all blow our cash – both knowingly and unconsciously. The only way to break the cycle is by conducting a brutal financial audit on yourself. Sit down with your spending journal and turn a critical eye onto how your money is going out the door. What fat can you trim from your budget? What are your own areas of weakness? Once you have answered these questions, you will be much better equipped to make smarter financial decisions that will help you get the most out of all the money you bring in! Good luck!

The FHA recently changed the rules for loans, however. These changes are really going to throw a wrench in the process that buyers have come to expect when dealing with these types of mortgages. Here’s a summary of all the recent changes to FHA loans, so that you can be informed as to the most current information that you need to know.

Seller concessions are one area that have seen significant changes under the header of FHA mortgage assistance. These concessions are dealers made by home sellers to buyers as incentives that help offset the buyers’ costs. The price of closing costs, home inspections required by insurers, and appraisals can all fall under the heading of possible concessions that sellers might make on behalf of buyers. There is and has long been a cap on the allowable seller concessions that may permissibly be given. It used to be six percent, but FHA loan changes have halved that amount to just three percent. Why is this, you might be wondering? Well, the Authority has determined that there is a statistically-significant correlation between high seller concessions and subsequent default rates. This could possibly be because sellers are making concessions simply to mask the fact that they are driving up the price of the home. Concessions therefore equal higher home prices. Allowing only lower percentage concessions will hopefully take at least a small chunk out of the default rate. As a buyer, you can expect the perks you receive from sellers to be less lavish. It’s important to note that concessions in excess of the three percent cap are not expressly prohibited. Rather, any concessions in excess of three percent will necessarily have to result in a reduction of the home’s selling price on a dollar-for-dollar basis, which also scales back on the allowable amount of the mortgage.

The next significant area in which FHA loans have changed is credit scores. Your FICO score, the ubiquitous three-digit number that identifies to banks and other creditors how good of a credit risk you are, is used by the FHA as a means of determining eligibility for several loan programs. For the first time, the FHA would impose a minimum credit score of 500 on potential homebuyers, with extra penalties for those with the worst credit. Mortgage holders with scores below 580 would be obliged to cough up minimum down payments of at least ten percent, as opposed to the three and a half percent that is the standard for all other buyers. This stands to reason, since the lower the FICO score, the higher chance that a borrower will eventually default on their home loan (or anything else, actually). As measured this past January, FHA borrowers with credit scores less than 580 were three times as likely to default on their mortgages than those with credit scores of 580 or greater. This change is actually not likely to have a dramatic effect on FHA borrowers, since the lenders with whom the agency subcontracts already have much more strident credit restrictions. Only around one percent of FHA borrowers have a credit score below 580.

Underwriting of FHA loans is also about to change. For those not in the know, this term refers to the process through which loans are actually approved or denied by an automated system that takes into account many factors about a prospective real estate deal: the property’s value, the borrower’s income, debt, and credit score, and the likelihood of the borrower(s) repaying the loan. It used to be the case that higher-risk mortgage applicants who were rejected by the FHA’s automated underwriting system could be manually approved for a loan by underwriting staff with fairly little trouble. Nowadays, borrowers flagged by the system for review will undergo much more exhaustive scrutiny of their case before manual approval. No longer will lenders have such free discretion with approving loans. The overarching theme in the FHA’s changes, in case you didn’t notice, is risk prevention. The agency wants to cut down on the number of loans that could potentially bounce back as defaults. Borrowers who are kicked out by the underwriting system may be required to pony up cash reserves to be approved for a loan. Cash reserves may equal one mortgage payment or greater. Those buyers with subprime credit scores (below 620) would be more closely examined for fitness of receiving a loan at all. These buyers might be restricted to how much of a mortgage they can receive based on their debt-to-income ratio as a way of ensuring that they do not bite off more than they can chew and become a high risk for financial disaster down the road.

All of these changes so far have been on the negative side, since they represent a tightening of current rules. The single rule change that will likely be met with great adulation by consumers is the new short refinancing program being offered to buyers who are underwater on their current loans. These borrowers owe more on their mortgages than their current home is worth, which is obviously a poor situation. The new FHA rules would allow upside down borrowers to refinance their existing mortgages into an FHA loan that would be for a lower amount. The issue of negative equity is a huge one in the American real estate market today, since these people are much more vulnerable to foreclosure. If upside down borrowers experience a major financial crisis like a lost job, they have no equity in their home from which to draw, and no way to quickly dispose of the house through a speedy sale if needed. This program is designed to aid in these cases, albeit with some serious consequences to consider. Not all homeowners will qualify, since the lender of their mortgage must agree to reduce the outstanding loan balance by at least ten percent. Borrowers must have around thirty-one percent of their gross monthly income free and available to make monthly mortgage payments (which will likely go up in exchange for the bank knocking money off the mortgage), and borrowers’ credit scores will likely be affected in a negative way. On the other hand, it’s good to know that the FHA is concerned with more than just risk management for itself and its partners, and that it is doing its part as a federal agency to assuage the foreclosure crisis in the United States today.

Thirteen Republican Senators inundated Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius with letters demanding she act quickly and efficiently to prohibit state pools from covering elective abortions through high-risk pools. They demanded a response by the end of the day today, on the penalty of Congress “modify[ing]” the current law.” Any amendments to the healthcare plan will just delay the enactment date of these provisions, a setback that would be enormously dismaying to those who have waited so long for the hope of insurance when they have none.

Abortion remains a much-contended topic in modern day America. Pro life advocacy groups, aside from their strong theological and ethical objections to the termination of pregnancies, also argue that these procedures are elective and preventable, and not a worthwhile use of federal tax dollars. The exclusion of elective abortions from all aspects of the federal healthcare plan has enraged feminists and pro-choice groups, who point to the many social and economic benefits of making these procedures affordable and available to women of all social classes, including those who will be covered by federally-funded health insurance plans.

It’s not that the health care law allows high-risk state insurance pools to pay for elective abortions with federal money – it’s simply that the law does not prohibit this from happening. The so-called Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan was written with the original intent of aiding those turned down for insurance coverage as a result of restrictions against pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the healthcare reform law go into effect in 2014 and ban the denial of policies based on these reasons. The law allotted some five billion dollars in funds drawn from federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department.

As states begin to announce how they will use their respective shares of the subsidies for developing high-risk pools, anti-abortion coalitions have had their radar turned to high, just waiting to see what decisions states would make with regards to abortion coverage. Pennsylvania got quickly dinged as one location where taxpayer-funded abortion was looking like an increasingly realistic possibility. The state’s policy did not actually reference abortion, interestingly enough, and does say that “elective abortions” will not be covered, but abortion foes warned that the lack of specific prohibitions left far too much room for dispute. The National Right to Life Committee said that, due to the fact that “elective abortion” is not a legal term, any abortion procedure legal in the state could be theoretically covered under the plan – and the bill footed by taxpayers. The Pennsylvania Insurance Department, for its own part, insists that the state cannot and will not use any federal money it might receive to fund abortions of any kind.

The Health and Human Services Department has showed a similar stance on the topic, stating that abortions simply will not be covered in any instance except those of rape, incest, or situations where carrying a pregnancy could place the mother’s life in danger. This statement isn’t considered good enough for the senators, however, since they contend that simply comments “do not have the force of law and will not prohibit the use of funds for these services.” In other words, they are exceedingly paranoid about the possibility of abortions being covered by federal funds, and nothing short of a binding official mandate will dissuade them from their single-minded insistence.

The letter was signed by: Sens. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah; Mike Enzi, R-Wyo.; Tom Coburn, R-Okla.; Richard Burr, R-N.C.; Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska; John Barrasso, R-Wyo.; Lamar Alexander, R-Tenn.; Mike Johanns, R-Neb.; Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.; John Thune, R-S.D.; John Cornyn, R-Texas; Chuck Grassley, Iowa; and Jon Kyl, R-Ariz. It was sent on Wednesday, and the lawmakers gave the HHS until the end of the day today to respond.