Red Tails - Movie Review

There were a few movies that opened recently we'd wanted to see, so we took in a couple of them over the weekend.  I'll review The Descendants when I get a chance, but today we'll talk about Red Tails.

Red Tails tells the story of the Tuskegee Airmen, a group of African-American pilots - the first such group to see combat service in the United States Air Force - in World War II.  I should say, it tells a comic book version of the story.  There is little shown of the oppressive racial prejudice of the times, and the battle scenes look more like a video game than reality.  It seems like there could have been an opportunity to make a wonderful, moving film about these couragous men.  That being said, this is still an entertaining movie.

The characters, while not fully developed, are appealing - you do grow to care about many of them.  In particular, David Oyelowo was quite good as "Lightning" Little - the daredevil of the group.  His romance with "Sofia" (Daniela Ruah) is touching.  Unfortunately, it, like most of the other personal interactions, isn't fully developed in the movie.  I'd have liked to see a little more of them, and a little more of the interaction between Colonel A.J. Bullard and his superiors (not to mention his men).  Turning these men into real people - not super heroes - would have made this a superior movie.

As it was, Red Tails is an entertaining, action-filled film.  It's fun to watch, and you'll cheer for the good guys right up to the end.  That won't be enough for many critics, but it was enough for an enjoyable two hours at the movies.

Happy Birthday, Theresa

My wife is a complex person, much too complex to describe adequately in the space and time available here.  Since anyone reading this probably already knows her, I won't try to paint a clear picture for you - instead, I'll talk a little about how she has changed in the 35+ years we've been married.
 
As a newlywed, Theresa was beautiful, sweet, and conservative.  She had no ambitions, other than to be a great wife and - eventually - mother.  She worked, of course, because that was what you did if you didn't have kids, but she always assumed that would stop when we had children.  In many ways, she was innocent, even a bit naive.  Of course, most of us share those characteristics at the age of 18.  What not all of us had at that or any age was her honesty, character, and courage.  These things haven't changed - she doesn't cheat, lie, or steal, and she will always speak her mind. 

At 18 (and for a number of years after), Theresa was unconcerned about her long-term health. She did want to stay in shape, but only so she looked OK - it had nothing to do with fitness.  Theresa was a smoker for the first 15 years or so of our marriage.

On our move to Lincoln, we had a bad experience with several Realtors,  before we found one who did a good job.  When we talked about it, Theresa said, "I could do better than that!".  She did.  She started out in real estate part time, and soon was doing very well.  A few years later, the largest company in town recruited her to be an assistant manager and trainer, and she was well on her way to a successful career in management.

At about the same time as the job change, she gave up smoking.  I had quit a few years earlier, but it was a much tougher task for Theresa.  In quitting, she demonstrated the strength, resolve, and mule-headed stubbornness I had come to expect from her - characteristics that would help her in later years as she struggled with nerve damage from a back injury.  That allowed her to not only function despite the pain, but to actually increase her fitness level.  Eventually, she was able to lose weight and gain some control over her body.

Like most of us, Theresa has changed through the years.  She no longer has the same conservative, religious world view she had in the 1970's.  She's broken with the Catholic Church, and no longer attends services.  She still has, I believe, some spiritual feelings, but recognizes the issues with that faith.  She has gone from having virtually no career ambitions, to being extremely driven, and settled into the belief that work, while important, is not the most important thing in life.  She's still beautiful, but isn't vain.  She's extremely health conscious - she works out hard 5 or 6 days a week, and eats sensibly most of the time.

Fortunately, there's a lot more that hasn't changed.  If the naivete is gone, the good heart is still there - she'll do anything for her friends and family.  She's more likely than anyone I know to do an unexpected good deed for someone else.  She's personally very disciplined, and extremely protective of her kids.  Most people like her when they meet her, and those that don't are missing the boat.  She's a genuine, strong, caring person, well worth the effort to get to know.

On January 28th, sometime in the last half of the previous century, Theresa was born.  It's a great day - Happy Birthday, Theresa!

Darrin was a Male Chauvinist Pig, or Why I Like This Century Better

I've always been a sucker for Bewitched, the 60's TV show starring Elizabeth Montgomery (yeah, I know there were some other folks in it, too, but did anyone really care about anybody but Samantha?).  I'll often watch an episode in the morning while I'm getting dressed, and I have to say, it's not nearly as entertaining as it was way back when.  Some of that is due to the fact that I am over (OK, not really) my adolescent crush on Elizabeth Montgomery, but mostly it's because I just can't stand Darrin!

I watched an episode the other morning that got me thinking about how society has changed since the 1960's.  In this show, Darrin went ballistic when Samantha told him she was going to the "Witches Council" for a couple of hours.  Of course, "Dum-Dum" went on a tirade:  "You're a wife first, and a witch second", and "Your place is here, at home", then finishing with the classic, "I absolutely forbid you to go!".  Samantha agrees, then gets her cousin to stand in for her at home while she goes anyway.  After some funny bits with Serena (also played by Montgomery) fending off Darrin's amorous advances, Darrin realizes he's been a jerk, and true love conquers all.

I remember watching this episode in the late 60's, and thought nothing of a husband "forbidding" his wife to go to a meeting (of course, I was a child, but I don't think adults thought the concept was out of line).  Nobody liked Darrin, of course - he was a boob - but that was based on his shrill personality, not on his outlook on life and marriage.  It was perfectly reasonable, at the time, for him to insist his intelligent, capable wife stay home and tend house while he went to work - even BEFORE there were children in the family.  On top of that, he insisted that Samantha perform all the dreary, mundane tasks required of her the "mortal" way - sans witchcraft.

Think about that;  You have the ability to do all your housework with the twitch of a nose, but your "lord and master" says you have to do it the hard way!  Why?  I understand not using your talents to gain a competitive edge in your career - that part is admirable.  But why would you insist on forcing her to push a vacuum around the living room?  In what way is it wrong to do that with the least amount of effort possible?  My wife isn't a witch (well, not most of the time, anyway), but she has abilities far beyond most mortals, particularly in the kitchen.  She can cook huge meals, very quickly, and have everything get done at the same time!  If that's not spooky enough, the kitchen stays almost magically clean while she's doing it.  Now, I can cook, a little, but everything is done when it decides to be, and the kitchen could charitably be described as a pigsty when I'm done.  Should I insist that Theresa not use her talent when she cooks?  After all, it's not fair that she can do it so much easier than I can, right?

In Bewitched, Samantha is smarter and more level-headed than Darrin, yet he is the unquestioned head of the household.  Her role is to support him, and in fact she bails him out over and over again.  Every time she comes up with the great idea to save the client's business, she pretends he did the work.  When there's a decision to be made, he makes it.  When it blows up in his face, she can always bail him out - provided, of course, that she doesn't rely on witchcraft!  Basically, you need to help, but you have to do it in the hardest way I can think of.

Other sitcoms from that time period featured similar values.  In Leave it to Beaver, June stayed home all day, and dutifully cooked and cleaned.  When the kids acted up, she usually deferred to Ward's judgement.  She was the emotional support, and he laid down the law.  In I Love Lucy, Lucille Ball was constantly scheming - without success - to move into her husbands world.  Of course, she couldn't pursue it openly, because he didn't want her to.  The Dick Van Dyke Show, one of my favorites as a child, featured the lovely and talented Mary Tyler Moore as a housewife who happily accepted her subservient role.  The women in these shows weren't necessarily oppressed (none of the husbands were as big a jerk as Darrin), but they were certainly less than full partners at home.

I understand that a TV show from the 1960's isn't a perfect reflection of society at that time, but I don't think it's too far off the mark.  My mother went back to work early in that decade, and - from what she says now - Dad didn't like it.  He made a point of NOT helping with housework, and it caused a major rift for some period of time.  I wasn't aware of any problems at the time, but I can believe it happened.  After a few years, he got over it, but I don't think he ever totally adjusted.

In our household, as well as in many others, things work differently now.  Major decisions are made together, but most day-to-day options are chosen by the one best in position to choose.  My wife typically picks out - and buys - her own car.  She's better at negotiating, and who knows better than her what kind of car she likes?  She will pretty much always tell me what she's thinking, and ask my opinion, but it's her decision.  Sometimes she has trouble getting the sales person to believe she's going to buy without her husband, but she can handle that OK, too.  I'm better at some things, so I tend to take care of them (home repairs being the most obvious).  Theresa cooks, due to the above-mentioned super power, but I do most of the grocery shopping.  She makes me a list, but I am allowed to deviate from it if it seems like a good idea.

Our roles have changed over the past 35 years.  When we were younger, Theresa stayed home raising kids, and I worked.  Naturally, she was responsible for most things at home - I went to work and came home to dinner ready, a clean house, and virtually no responsibilities.  Now, I have more free time during the week than she does, so I do a little more around the house (not a lot more, I'll admit).

In today's world, it's not just that women have the right to work - it's that they are starting to move into positions of authority and responsibility.  No longer relegated to clerical or service roles, many women are employed in management, engineering, or some other professional field.  We certainly have a long ways to go to eliminate the glass ceiling, but there's definitely been progress.

At home, more women are equal partners - able to make not only their own decisions, but also those impacting their families. Their new role reflects the reality that both men and women have different strengths and weaknesses, and it only makes sense to take advantage of those abilities in the household as well as in business.

Interestingly, today's sitcoms, while still featuring many stereotypical roles for both men and women, are now much more likely to showcase stronger women.  In Everyone Loves Raymond, it's clear the Ray's wife Debra is not only the brains of the family, she's also the boss.  Seinfeld features Elaine, who is more than able to hold her own with the guys.  Even shows featuring singles (Friends, The Big Bang Theory, etc) show women as strong characters, not just accessories for their men. 

TV doesn't lead the way to social change, it - imperfectly - reflects reality.  As for Darrin - if Bewitched was real, Samantha would have turned him into a toad within 6 months.  If I behaved like that at home, my wife would turn me into something much worse - an ex-husband!

The Tax Cut Fallacy, or Why "Trickle Down" Doesn't

I hear people talking in the hall.  Unfortunately, sometimes I hear them and I can't just shut my door (or my ears).  Recently, I heard a couple of people talk about how our economy is in trouble, and we need to "cut government and cut taxes, so people can afford to hire help".  That got me thinking - again - about how backward the tax cut cheerleaders have it.

Since I worked for a number of years in manufacturing, I tend to look at business from that perspective, but the principles are the same for other industries as well.

Wealthy people are "Job Creators" in the same way that your local TV weatherman is a "Rain Maker".  Jobs are created in response to demand - people want your product or service, so you need to add staff to fill that demand.  Think about it:  what happens if you add production capacity (more people) without effecting demand?  Clearly, you increase the supply, leading to a glut on the market, and REDUCING prices.  Revenue goes down, while expenses are increased due to higher labor and material costs incurred by making product you don't need.  

Fortunately, rich people aren't that stupid!  When they get tax cuts, they have more money.  They don't, from my experience, feel any great need to rush out to spend it.  Certainly, they may decide to blow it on something they've wanted, but for the most part, they already have everything they need (and most of what they want).  A windfall is probably going to be invested - the more well off someone is, the more likely they'll have a financial plan.

Contrast that with what happens when someone of low or moderate income gets a raise.  They are very likely to spend the extra income on living expenses.  A small amount of money may just go towards paying off bills or credit cards, while a big bonus may mean a new TV, Car, or Home.  Since they have some needs (or wants) that are not satisfied, they will be much more likely to spend the money immediately, rather than invest it.

Now, don't get the idea that I think the country would be better off if everyone spent their whole paycheck every week - far from it!  We're talking about the best way to heat up a sluggish economy here, and the best way to do that is to pump up demand and create jobs.  Swimming lessons are important if you want to keep your kids safe from drowning, but if they fall in the lake, throw them a life preserver!  Long-term investment is important, not only to the financial health of the individual, but also to the economic security of the country as a whole, but nobody can worry about their retirement income if they can't afford to put bread on the table today.

There are cases where tax policy can make an impact.  Some states - including Nebraska - have from time to time introduced tax incentives to businesses giving credits for opening new facilities, expanding existing ones, or creating a certain number or percentage of new jobs.  While these programs may lure businesses to expand in that state or city, they don't effect the underlying demand.  In essence, you're recruiting the business to your state by taking it away from another - that's great for one state, but does nothing for the national picture.  It also seems strange for all the "Free Market" types to advocate these policies.

So, if we accept the premise that the best way to ramp up the economy is to get more buying power into the hands of the ones most likely to actually buy something, what's wrong with using tax cuts to do it?  Nothing, really, except it's an inefficient and sometimes unfair way to do it.  The biggest problem is that lower income people don't pay much in income taxes (and income taxes are the primary focus, at least as far as the federal government goes), so the tax cuts just don't do much for the economy.  My mother, who will occasionally complain about her tax bill, pays only a few hundred dollars per year in income taxes.  A 10% reduction would have absolutely NO impact on her lifestyle or the economy.

How about moderate income folks?  Tax rates are a little higher, so the effect is much more significant - there is a little more money to spend, and middle-class folk would have plenty to spend it on.  Of course, a lot of those people would use the cash to try to get caught up on bills, or to put a little away for a rainy day - both fine uses of money, but they may not have the immediate impact on the economy we're looking for.

Much of the problem with these schemes is that in order to have a significant boosting effect, there has to be enough money involved.  Tax cuts, for most of us, means a few more dollars in our paycheck each week - that may help, but it isn't the big shot in the arm that a really sick economy may need.  Cutting taxes on the high earners equals a lot of money, but, as we've already discussed, it won't do much for the economy.

The other problem with using tax cuts as economic stimulus is that the timing is wrong.  They're implemented too late, and continue for too long.  The Bush Tax Cuts were enacted mainly because we had a surplus from the Clinton years.  They've been in effect for the better part of a decade, whether they were necessary to stimulate the economy or not. It's very difficult politically to increase ANY taxes, so they just keep getting extended, even in the absence of evidence that they are doing any good.  Maybe our taxes are too high, maybe they're too low - my point is, these cuts are not being extended for economic stimulus.  These tax cuts were started - and have been extended - purely for political purposes.

Tax credits can be an effective way to improve a segment of the economy.  The recent tax credit for first-time home buyers certainly generated a brief flurry of activity in the housing market.  Unfortunately, the effect was temporary, and did little to solve the longer-term problem (in fact, the market was even MORE depressed for a period of time after the credits stopped).  I remember a number of potential buyers telling me they would "wait to buy until there's another credit".   Therein lies the issue I see with temporary tax credits - they stimulate the heck out of people while they're going on, but usually depress the same segment of the economy when they're discontinued.

If you're going to try to stimulate the economy with tax reductions, something like the payroll tax holiday makes sense:  Low and middle-income taxpayers get a temporary, significant respite from withholding.  They get extra money in every pay check, and everybody knows this is just for a limited period. Tax credits, as well as reductions, are fine if they can be used as temporary measures.  To dig out of the current hole, these tactics are inadequate to get the job done.

There are no quick solutions to our problems, but we need to get started on long-term plans.  We should invest in education - not just primary school, but post-secondary education, including engineering, business, and the sciences.  We should consider public funding for at least some schooling past high school - be it an associates degree, a technical degree, or even a bachelors degree.   It's sad that so many public school systems are struggling to make ends meet.  Failing to fund public schools is like saving money by not changing the oil in your car - it's going to cost you a lot more in the long run.  Our manufacturing facilities - or any of our industries - can not complete if our work force is under-educated or illiterate.  I'd like to see us invest in significant projects to repair or improve some of our deteriorating infrastructure.  In addition to providing a much-needed boost to the construction industry, it would solve a problem that's going to bite us sooner or later - many of our roads and bridges will need extensive repairs, and local and state governments don't have the money to make it happen. Instead of denying the facts regarding environmental concerns, we need to address those concerns and lead the world in developing solutions to reduce pollution and develop new energy sources.  In short, we need a Progressive agenda - something that counters the old "conservative" thinking.

The national debt is certainly a long-term problem - I agree that we need to take steps to bring it under control.  We just don't need to destroy our economy to fix it (in fact, drastic spending cuts won't fix it at all, since we'll plunge ourselves into a recession).  As our economy improves, we'll need to get the debt under control.  At that point, I'd like to see us begin to reduce military spending to a more reasonable part of our total budget (of course, we can't cut that too quickly, either, or we'll send our economy into a tailspin).  Amazingly, virtually no politician has been willing to put military spending on the table when they're talking about balancing the budget.

I don't like paying taxes any more than the next person, and I love it when my tax bill is reduced - I just don't see taxes as evil in every case.  Too often, taxes and the government are the bogeyman for everything that's wrong with this country, and it's just not true.  A progressive tax system is not only fair, it is best for the overall health of our economy.  Our economic problems have grown over the past four decades, and it's going to take some time to implement solutions.  As much as we'd all like to believe it, we need to understand that tax cuts don't fix everything.

Short Sales - What to do if you are upside down on your home

In today's economy, many homeowners are faced with a problem:  They need or want to sell their home, but they are not able to clear enough from the sale to pay off their mortgage.  This can be the result of some or all of the following factors:

• The homeowner has refinanced, or taken out a second mortgage.
• The loss of a job, or a cutback in hours or income, has made it difficult to keep up with payments.  Often the financial setback is caused or accompanied by a serious health problem.
• The homeowner financed the home with a small or no down payment, and they've not lived there long enough to pay the mortgage down significantly.
• The decline in home values has eaten up the equity in the home.
• Maintenance has been skipped or delayed, causing the property to deteriorate.

Some of these circumstances may be completely beyond the ability of the homeowner to control, while others are the direct result of poor planning or decisions.  Regardless of the cause, once you're in that situation, it doesn't matter how you found yourself there.  The question is, what do you do to get out of the hole?

While it may not matter why you got upside down, your particular circumstances will determine what you can do next.  You may have one or more of the following choices for action:

1. Do Nothing.  If you don't have to move, don't move!  Even if your home is worth only half of what you paid for it, so what?  Unless you need to sell it, your loss is only theoretical until you actually have to unload it.  If you don't need to get out of town, and you are able to keep up on the payments, you are probably best served by just staying put, making the payments, and waiting for the market to improve.  When it does, you can get out from under the mortgage without digging too deeply into your pocket.
2. Increase your income or reduce your expenses.  If you're in trouble because your hours got cut, try adding a part-time job.  If that doesn't work, reduce your monthly obligations.  Sell a car, cut back on cable TV or internet service.  If you work at it, you may be able to save enough to enable you to keep up on the mortgage.  Focus on building savings or paying down your mortgage, to put it back in line with current property values.
3. Talk to your bank.  Guess what?  They don't want your home! They'd like you to keep your home, and work on getting your payments back on schedule.They may be able to lower your interest rate, or even allow you to just make interest payments until you get back on your feet.  The worst thing you can do is to just fall behind on payments without talking to your lender - do that, and you'll lose it for sure.  See what they can do for you.
4. Sell your home, and pay the extra money it takes to close the deal.  Do you have some assets you can sell or borrow against to get cash to close?  Check with your mortgage holder or local bank to see if you can take a personal loan.  As disappointing  as it may seem to borrow money to sell your home, remenber - it is your responsibility.  You owe the money, and you have an obligation to pay it back if you're able.
5. Give the bank title in lieu of forclosure.  This means you'll turn the house over to the lender, without them going to the expense of the foreclosure procedure.  Sometimes - not always - a bank will do this in order to mitigate their loss.  The down side is, it is likely to have the same effect on your credit rating as a foreclosure.
6. Pursue a short sale.  A short sale just means you sell your home, and your lender agrees to accept less than the full payment of your mortgage.  Why would a bank go along with that?  Because it saves them money to clear these loans without going through the foreclosure process.  The advantage to the seller is that, while you'll still take a hit to your credit rating, it won't be as bad as a foreclosure.  You'll also have the satisfaction of knowing you've done what you could to mitigate the bank's loss.

Not every homeowner is a candidate for a short sale.  The following are characteristics of someone who stands the best chance of getting approval for s short sale:

• Some circumstances have caused him to get in a financial hole. Loss of job, serious illness, divorce, legal problems, or a similar personal difficulty has made it impossible to continue to live here.
• A forced move out of the area means he can't stay in the home.  Just wanting a different home is not an acceptable reason for you to not pay your home off.  If you've lost your job and have to move out of state to find work, that may be your only choice.
• No other other options are available.  Don't expect the bank to take a short sale if you have cash or other liquid assets.  They aren't going to let you get by that easy!
• The homeowner is willing to ask the bank to take a short sale, and they're persistent enough to follow through and keep pushing for a resolution. If you're too shy or embarrassed to ask, you won't get what you want.

OK, so a short sale is your only option, and you fit the profile of the short sale candidate.   How do you go about making it happen?  The good news is, it's not difficult - just tedious.  Here is the basic process:

• Talk to your lender.  Get your most recent statement, and call them up.  Explain your situation, and tell them you need to pursue a short sale.  Don't expect them to approve it now - you're just getting the ball rolling, getting a jump on the process.  Keep in mind, their goal at this time will be to make this hard for you - they really want to get all their money!  Be patient, but persistent - your leverage is their desire to minimize their loss.  They may ask for some documentation, and have some forms to sign, that's normal.
• Pick a realtor with experience in short sales.  Virtually every lender will want you to have a realtor to market the home.  They will probably want a Comparative Market Analysis or a Broker's Price Opinion to give them a good idea of the home's value.  The banks understand the value of a realtor, and they'll negotiate a commission - to be paid by the bank - with your agent.
• Put the home on the market at an aggressive price.  Your job is to try to maximize the price, while getting the home sold in as short a time as possible.  A short sale is a pain for a buyer, so they'll want to buy it at the low end of its value.  Don't, however, accept an offer that is too far below the fair market value - by doing so, you'll just set yourself up for failure when the bank won't approve it.
• Once you have an offer, and accept it, your realtor will present it to the bank.  Expect the bank to take some time to evaluate the offer - most take between 6 weeks and two months, but I've had them take as little as 2 weeks, and as long as 7 months.  
• When the bank approves the sale, they'll have an addendum to sign.  One of the requirements is that the sale is "as is" - they should also have a statement that they release you from your debt obligation.  Read it carefully, and get legal advice if you're not comfortable with anything.  Most banks are reasonable when it gets to this point - the decision has been made, and they just want to get it done.    Be prepared to move fast once they say OK - they'll usually want to move as fast as possible at that point.

Many people have been faced with a no-win situation - they can't afford to live in their home, but they can't afford to sell it, either.  If you're in that position, don't panic, and don't feel ashamed.  Do what you can to get out of the hole, and start putting your financial life back together again.  A short sale isn't always your best solution, but if it is, make it happen.