I'm kept up at night wishing I could afford to stay at home with my kids instead of working, and still afford a roof over the head, to repay the enormous student loans (which, had I known I would want to stay home, perhaps I would not have racked up?), and eat... for those who say to move to a smaller/ more affordable place, I will admit that I've made the choice to be in the DC area to be near my parents rather than in a more affordable city. In this area, we can't find a more affordable home.

I am concerned about our educational system. It is seriously flawed and poorly educated kids will soon be the poorly educated adults who run our country. I could go on, but I will spare you all my lengthy opinions on this matter. I also worry about health care, college tuition (we save for retirement first- loans won't pay for me to retire). I also aworry about environmental issues and food safety.

I worry about the media influence on my kids, but that is not a government issue. It is my job to limit that influence. There is one tv in our house and we do not have cable.

And yes, I do wish there was more time!

Wow, it's WDC's fault yet:

"One in four children under the age of 5 have a television in their room."

I was in College (which was paid for in loans that I took out, not my parents) before I had a TV and even then it wasn't in "my" room, it was in the living room.

I also don't think it's fair to dump everyone's health insurance issues on all of us. It's bad enough I'm paying for someone elses SS, medicare, and medicaid! Now you want me to pay for your kids, too? The problem lies with the pharmaceutical companies (why does the price of medications go up the more popular they become?) and the right to sue, sue, sue the doctors and hospitals, etc.

"Only 23 percent of parents say they have a will."

This is just frightening. I know people don't like to think about death, but when you have kids, you need a will.

"Saving for college ranks higher than saving for retirement (57 percent to 22 percent)"

This is not good. As Momof5 said, you can always borrow money for college, you can't take out loans to pay for retirement.

"One in four children under the age of 5 have a television in their room"

This is just sad. Yes, my kids watch TV, probably a little too much, but it's in the family room. I see no reason for kids, especially that young, to have a TV in their room. JMO.

I thought it was funny that parents don't "think Washington is doing enough to address their" concern about "how fast they grow up" (meaning the children). I'm thinking that the government will never have much control over Mother Nature and Father Time.
I often tease my daughter about "cutting out the growing so darn much, please." She claims she can't help it. Yeah, sure. At least I have an answer now: she is conspiring with the government to grow up too fast.

We don't have a will yet-- the problem is that we can't decide on the guardian. I'm sure lots of people in DC that this conundrum-- no family in the area-- so do you select a family member that would cause the child to lose their friends at the same time they become orphans, or do you select friends-- and place that kind of responsibility on friends? I have a sister in the area, but she is unmarried-- do I want to burden her with children that aren't her own? Any good books out there to help me resolve these questions?

I'll have to echo DC 21113's comments -- I worked two jobs to put myself through night school. Not a dime from mommy and daddy. I wear clothes from Wal-Mart, drive a 9-year-old used car (Hyundai -- works great), and work hard just to keep my head above water. I do not want to pay for somebody else's illnesses, mistakes and poor judgment. Furthermore, I don't pay attention at all to statistics. Statistics are numbers used to manipulate whatever issue you want. Whenever a sentence starts with "____% of ____" I just stop reading there and go on to something else.

"Saving for college ranks higher than saving for retirement (57 percent to 22 percent)"

does this actually mean anything? Doesn't this country have a negative savings rate? We should be applauding anyone for saving anything. Personally, if you have to make a choice, it is better to save for retirement. Not just because you can't borrow for your retirement, but also because a lot of 401Ks allow you to borrrow money from yourself with out a penalty. If you need college money, you can do it that way. But let's not jump on people for ear marking some money for college savings. It probably makes people more disciplined to actually save something. It is just too easy to say, I can do it later or the money will just come. I do think the way 529s are structured makes it harder for parents. You take a risk in saying that the kid will actually go to college and finish in four years. I wish there were more default clauses just in case the adult child does not go to college (special needs, not interested, kid became a bum, not right thing for this kid). But I do understand the government's point is that you don't want to give people unnecessary tax shelters.

It seems that lack of time is the real problem. I wonder how much interest would be there for protecting against online child predators who get hold of kids through social networking web sites and chat rooms.

Re saving for college vs retirement: I work in the financial services industry, and I agree that you need to put retirement savings ahead of college (if you have to choose). There are loans, grants, etc to pay for college, but you don't want to end up eating catfood at age 80 because you can't afford anything else. Even if you work till age 70, people are living longer, health care costs keep going up... do the math.

To all of you who don't want to pay for the health of children- guess what, you can't back away from civilization unless you go live in a mud hut in some country where they don't collect taxes. You want roads? You pay for the injuries the workers get from building the roads. You pay for that currently. America, love it or leave it. You don't want to deal with civilization? MOVE.

I agree that you need to put retirement savings ahead of college (if you have to choose).
-------

Does anyone know any families that don't have to choose? I'm putting away $17k for my retirement per year and $2k for college for 2 kids. I pay $24k for a mortgage, around $22k in total income tax, put $7k toward my car loan and maintenance this year. Daycare for my kids comes to about $20k. Home repairs this year cost about $9k. Medical expenses topped $1k this year. Food and clothing runs about $8k for the year or so, a broad guess at about $150-200 per week. That's $88,000 right there not including everything else. If I pushed my college savings to $10k per year that last $8k would be hard to get to.

Do you really know anyone who doesn't feel the budgetary pinch of deciding between retirement and college? I don't.

"We don't have a will yet-- the problem is that we can't decide on the guardian."

Do you really want the courts to decide for you? That's what you are doing by putting it off. In your case, the judge would probably ship the kids out of state to grandparents or foist them on your sister. Better to talk about it. We ended up with a split arrangement--my much younger s-i-l gets custody of the kids but the executor's job and finances in general are handled by my out-of-state brother who has kids of his own

10:13: It isn't about how much you save for each one as much as ear marking a certain amount for college versus putting it all in IRAs/401ks. And for some people, they can save enough for retirement (10-14% of their gross income) while putting away enough each month to cover the cost of 4 years of state college(or private college). I know several people who have done this with professional government jobs. It is not a choice between college or retirement. Rather a choice between fancy vacations, extras, second homes, versus saving adequately for both. Doesn't mean their retirement will be with monthly trips to Europe. But they will be able to take a few nice trips, have enough money to live comfortably and provide a full 4 year college education for their two kids. I have only witnessed one family do it with 4 kids. But they made an awful lot of sacrifices along the way: cheap vacations, used clothing, no activities for the kids. Again it is just where people are actually putting the money (in a 401K or a 529).

To those of you without wills, let me tell you my story. I have two children and my husband passed away unexpectedly three years ago, without a will. In Maryland the law is that the children receive 50% of the parent's estate if the parent dies without a will. So, my then 18 year old son received $75,000 from his dad's estate (and there was no way I could put any controls over that money as 18 is considered adult). Three years later it is almost all gone.

My then 13 year old son also received $75,000. In Maryland, if a minor receives an inheritance and there is no will, that money becomes court controlled until he turns 18. I have been appointed guardian of his "estate" until then, and for him to access any of that money, we have to petition the court for a court order releasing funds. This is all because of (I think) prior cases where parents spent their children's inheritances inappropriately. I understand this, but it is frustrating for both my son and I, who find it hard to believe that the court can decide how he spends his money.

So, just a caution for you - even if you don't have all of the answers about how to handle your estate, get something in writing! Anything would be better than dealing with probate and the government.

10:13: Sounds to me like you are choosing to do both. You could have easily put 19K in your 401K or 10K in your 401K/9K in the 529. A rough rule of thumb is to save 10-15% of your gross income for retirement. Most financial planners are comfortable with 10% of your gross going to retirement. So if your income is 170K/year then your 17K makes sense. If it is less then your are over compensating your retirement rather then paying into a 529. What we are saying is this is good, because you can always borrow from your 401K to pay for college but you can't take a student loan out for your retirement. Believe it or not there are people out there who can save for both college and retirement adequately. Even upper middle class workers. Now the retirement may not be as luxurious as you may have dreamed and the college education may mean 2 kids at state college. But I know several people who have had government jobs or modest private sector jobs who have done this. It came with a lot of budgeting and careful planning through out the years. But it can be done.

I don't have kids but I do have a will and an advance directive in case I become an eggplant and can't make decisions on my own. On paper I'm worth a pretty fair amount. The value of my estate is going to a cancer research center at Johns Hopkins. If I leave it to my siblings my sister-in-law will get her acrylic claws on it and probably buy a fur coat and a new car. It's going someplace where it will do some good.

Another thought about this article - once again, Parenting magazine appears to be polling its target audience of upper-middle class two parent households with its questions. For those of us that are single parents struggling to raise children and keep a roof over their heads, we 1) don't have a choice about whether we work, 2) wish we were able to afford to fund either college or retirement, but so far haven't been able to, and 3) dream of the day when we can put a television in our childrens rooms, but until then are sharing one old tv with the whole family. It would be nice if every once in a while one of these articles (and this blog for that matter) looked at things from another point of view...

My concerns: the skyrocketing cost of health care in this country (thanks again for the SCHIP veto, Dubya), the "just a number" kind of experience our kids are receiving in overcrowded schools, the sense of entitlement that teenagers and tweens and young adults have, the future of Social Security, fear for the health of the planet and what global warming will mean for my children's children, my disenfranchised attitude toward government despite the fact that there's a woman and an African American in the running for President and they've both got a chance (I thought I'd be over the moon when this happened in my lifetime, but as it is, not really finding myself caring), concern that I am not savoring every second of my life.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?

It is not a choice between college or retirement. Rather a choice between fancy vacations, extras, second homes, versus saving adequately for both.
-----

Stop that. I looked at second homes and they generally run about $400k-1 million in vacation areas. Are you suggesting that the people you see have $500k second homes but no college savings?

i didn't go on a vacation this year because I had to put a new roof on my house which was about $5k.

You really are ignorant of DC finances, aren't you?

11:00 Who says their vacation home is in a prime location? One person I know has a cabin in West VA another has a house in the rural part of MD. Not every one is buying homes in prime locations. You must be ignorant to think all vacation homes have to start at 400K. There is big country out there. Try looking outside DC for a change.

jj: I think Stacey and most people can only write from their own perspective. Or they write best about what they know. Maybe you could write a guest blog or Stacey could call out for a guest blog from a different perspective. I know that on balance folks complain about the same thing. But so far no one from a different perspective chooses to write a guest blog. Although the readers said they would love to hear from another pov.

foamgnome - what a great idea, thanks. I'd write one about teenagers - you know, normal teenagers that aren't top of their class, that have to fight to get into college, that have to have a part-time job. One perspective we rarely hear about. So often I feel like I am SO not a part of the world I read about here!

jj: Well, I would definitely want to read your blog. I do honestly think people care but it is hard to get that other pov. I know specifically on balance, people wanted to hear how working class people make it in this area. The few posts on topic were very interesting to the readers and they would love to hear a whole guest blog on those other topics.

No, neither the African American nor the woman running for President will win. Thank God. It's W's fault your kid is sick and he's to blame for Hurricane Katrina, too? Get a grip. Socialized medicine is a double-edged sword. If you vote for it, you'll have to take the bad with the good, like a waiting list for surgery.

My concerns are that my illegal nanny/housekeeper won't get back into the country after we spend our skiing vacation in Switzerland. It was hard getting her back here after our summer in the south of France. My Jaguar needs work on it, my DS's boarding school is closing, and my accountant neglected to pay my Neiman Marcus bill so they dropped us cold. Oh, the dreariness of it all.

Meanwhile, DD has run off with a rock musician and we're worried sick the tattoo she got on her butt will hit the front page any day now. We had to pay to expunge her drunk and drugged driving arrest at Hyannis. When will she ever learn?

Hey, anon at 11:25, bitter much? No, Katrina is not Dubya's fault (though the response was PATHETIC), but who else is responsible for the veto of SCHIP? And if we were to have socialized medicine in this country, private insurance would still be available for those who leave their Jaguars in the south of France with the nanny or whatever you said.

Also, I wouldn't be too sure about who's going to be the next President. Maybe we should place a virtual bet (Stacey can hold the virtual money) and see who's right next November.

" have a sister in the area, but she is unmarried-- do I want to burden her with children that aren't her own?"

Why don't you ask her if she wants to be "burdened" with your children?

DC2003, I'll bet if you ask your sister if she'll be guardian, her response will be similar to my sister's when I asked the same question:

"Of course. We would love them as our own."

"To those of you without wills, let me tell you my story. I have two children and my husband passed away unexpectedly three years ago, without a will. In Maryland the law is that the children receive 50% of the parent's estate if the parent dies without a will. So, my then 18 year old son received $75,000 from his dad's estate (and there was no way I could put any controls over that money as 18 is considered adult). Three years later it is almost all gone.

My then 13 year old son also received $75,000. In Maryland, if a minor receives an inheritance and there is no will, that money becomes court controlled until he turns 18. I have been appointed guardian of his "estate" until then, and for him to access any of that money, we have to petition the court for a court order releasing funds. This is all because of (I think) prior cases where parents spent their children's inheritances inappropriately. I understand this, but it is frustrating for both my son and I, who find it hard to believe that the court can decide how he spends his money."

This illustrates a great point. In most states, even if you have a will leaving everything to your children, they will not have access to the money until they turn 18 or 21, or have to petition the court to access it. Then when they turn 18 or 21 depending on the state, they get the entire amount.

The best thing to do is create a trust and then leave everything to the trust. You appoint a trustee who manages and allocates the money, and you can specify exactly when and for what purposes the kids can use the money for. It costs a few bucks to set it up, but it's well worth it.

jj: I had the same concern you did about who Parents' and Global Strategy polled, so I looked into it before writing. Here's the breakdown:

Race:

Black/African-American: 12%
White/Caucasian: 67%
Hispanic/Latino: 15%
Asian-American: 2%
Other: 2%
Refused: 2%

Household Income

Less than $30,000: 15%
$30,000-$50,000: 19%
$50,001-$75,000: 17%
$75,001-$100,000: 12%
$100,000-$150,000: 6%
$150,000-$200,000: 2%
More than $200,000: 2%
Refused: 26%

And working mom is correct. I like guest blogs that show different perspectives and would welcome one from you, so long as you're willing to write under your real name and not your screen name. Feel free to e-mail me at parenting@washingtonpost.com

Dennis, i am certain that my sister would agree to be named guardian, but I fear that saddling her with two little kids would really reduce her likelihood of finding a mate of her own-- or even getting a date! It would be a huge imposition on her life -- making her the single "mom" of children that aren't even her own. PErhaps there is some man out there that would still be interested in her, but, in DC at least, it seems to be impossible to meet a man if you are in your thirties even when you don't have little kids-- add kids to the mix and that would pretty much kill her dream of starting her own family. Not that she wouldn't do it, and I'm sure do a great job-- but it is just hard for me to place that burden on her. I guess I don't have any better option though. It's tempting to consider friends that attend our church.

Thanks to the poster who advised regarding trusts-- I didn't realize that that was the way to go.

My parents never dealt with any of this stuff until us kids were out of the house!

DC20003 - I agree that you should ask your sister. Maybe she would want those kids more than anything else? YOu don't know. Maybe the kids would help her weed out the unworthy fellas. Also remember, that it is unlikely that you will both die. I'm guardian for my best friend from college's two kids. Would it be a burden? Sure, but I know that we have the means and emotional capacity to raise these kids if they died, how could we not? I just told them to wear their seat belts and no skydiving.

DC 20003 -- If your sister is single she most likely has to work to support herself, unless her name is Paris Hilton. How could she take care of kids adequately if she has to work outside the home to make a living? Would she have adequate daycare? What about medical expenses if the kid(s) gets sick? No man in his right mind wants a woman who comes equipped with kids. You got that right -- she'll end up single and unwanted. 95% of beaten or murdered children are beaten or murdered by the mother's boyfriend.

Moxiemom, it sounds like you have the right attitude. I wonder how common it is to have someone who is NOT family listed as guardian? It may make it easier to explain to my family that I have chosen someone outside the family if it is a fairly common thing. As much as my kids would be a burden, I know my sister would be pretty hurt if we purposefully chose to designate a friend from church rather than her. We have life insurance, so it isn't a money burden.

DC20003 - "but it is just hard for me to place that burden on her."

Shouldn't it be her decision?

And remember that if you don't designate a guardian, the courts will decide, and I'm sure you don't want to leave it up to total strangers to decide who raises your children.

2:29 pm - there's this thing called "life insurance". I realize that money can be tight, but she should have some. So, if the sister has to raise the children, she gets the insurance money to help out.

Our will and insurance designated my SIL to raise the kids if we both died; it stipulated that my SIL could use the insurance money to pay all necessary expenses to raise the kids, INCLUDING buying a bigger place to live if need be, hire a nanny, or whatever else she deems necessary.

(Money for the kids when they're grown is designated separately, in a trust as noted above. It's the INSURANCE money that SIL gets to use to raise the kids.)

...and DC 20003 - I agree with everyone else who says "ask your sister." We sat down with SIL (she's DW's sister) and discussed this at length. She agreed. That was back in the days when she was single. Now she's married with a daughter of her own; she's still okay with it. Of course, three of our four are now in their late teens (and one's off to college already) so it's getting close to being moot, but still...

WorkingMomX: "And if we were to have socialized medicine in this country, private insurance would still be available for those who leave their Jaguars in the south of France with the nanny or whatever you said."

Depends on whether we chose the British model or the Canadian model.

In the British model, there's the National Health Service (NHS) but private care and private insurance/payments is still available for those who want to pay extra for better service.

In Canada, there's the Government-funded medical system run by each province (e.g., OHIP in Ontario), and private insurance/payments are strictly against the law - the doctor/hospital would be committing a crime by accepting money.

Which is why a lot of those in Canada who have money cross the border into the US for treatment rather than, say, be put in a 9-month queue for knee surgery to repair a torn ACL. (Which actually happened to a friend of mine; he lived in Toronto so he drove across to Buffalo and got the surgery done the next day instead of 9 months later.)

Google "Belinda Stronach". Family controls Magna (auto parts, horse race tracks, etc.) Prominent politician; member of the Federal Cabinet (prominent member of the Liberal party). One of the richest and most powerful women in the world. Diagnosed earlier this year with breast cancer. Now see if you can find out where her surgery was done. (Hint: it wasn't Canada.)

One person I know has a cabin in West VA another has a house in the rural part of MD. Not every one is buying homes in prime locations. You must be ignorant to think all vacation homes have to start at 400K. There is big country out there. Try looking outside DC for a change.
-------

I'm still wondering why someone wants to vacation in rural MD. I assure you that a Deep Creek Lake home can be from $300k-1.6 mill. I assure you as a DC resident that my vacation home ideas never included a second home in DC! But before I get to that, I should mention that everyone with this attitude should just go look at the prices for houses that are for sale in vacation areas. I planned my whole life to buy a beach house and they're completely out of reach for me in Deleware, MD or close-by VA.

What I had problems with and what is rarely discussed is that people say that people don't save because of the expensive vacation home, the home "they can't afford" or the fancy car, but the reality is that my wife pays roughly $1200 per year to take the bus and metro to work. I pay $1500 per year to park my car at work so I can pick up my kids from school. the cheapest car we could get that would fit our family was $19,000. That friends who wanted to buy a nice house ended up with a $450k house that looks terrible and costs them about $3000 in mortgage each month. That friends who are really wealthy spent a blistering $56k on their two children's private school educations.

No, this smacks of someone who wants to talk about understanding finances, but has no clue what it means to buy a house in the last 5 years.

We have chosen our very close friends as guardians for our children. She has been our chosen guardian since before she was married and when she and her husbnd became engaged we had a long talk with him to be sure he was ok with her remaining their guardian. I was worried that our families would be offended, but when we spoke to our parents they understood why and agreed that they would not have the energy to raise 5 kids. None of our siblings are married and we were not sure they would raise our kids with the same values we do. It is a hard decision, but you have to put it in writing because having the court decide is always less than ideal. Who needs kids going through a messy custody hearing between family members after losing their parents?