Looking Ahead

So, a new year has started. People traditionally look back at what has changed over the last year, and what they'd like to accomplish in the next year. And they do this, from what I can see, at a time when they've over-indulged, in eating, in consuming sugar (Christmas cookies and candies), in spending money and probably in drinking alcohol to celebrate the arrival of that new year.

Is that a good time to be doing this re-evaluation and planning, when you're hungover and depressed?

You've put on a couple pounds, so you rashly decide you must lose 100 pounds this year, meaning working out 3 hours a day… You charged a couple hundred dollars on your credit card, so you resolve to live on ramen noodles for a year and get that credit card completely paid off… Yeah, those kind of plans are going to work.

Me, I've been making my plans for a couple weeks now, even as I decided whether or not to have that 12^th cookie, or what gift to buy for my sister's daughter-in-law's best friend. But that's the way I am; I tend to make plans. It gives me something to think about, things to look forward to, lets me figure out how to deal if something goes awry.

I'd love to lose 100 pounds this coming year, but first I'm going to diligently do my physical therapy to strengthen my muscles so I can get to doing some sort of regular exercise.

I won't be eating ramen noodles all year, but I will be careful with my grocery budget, and I will work at reducing my credit card debt.

I've also got some traveling planned, just as soon as the weather lets Midwest roads thaw a bit. Told ya, it gives me something to look forward to.

So, my advice is to make some reasonable plans, with milestones you can actually attain. And every once in a while, let yourself have some fun.

Work Hours

When I was growing up (centuries ago, seems like), everybody talked about 'banker's hours'. I wasn't paying much attention at that tender age, but apparently, bankers started work in mid-morning, and closed up before most folks got off work. Oh, and they probably had a long lunch in there, too. Looking back, I wonder how people managed to do any banking at all; there was no direct deposit, no drive-up windows, no evening or weekend hours when the bank was open. But it must have been nice to BE a banker; no getting up before the sun, no late hours, and you got all sorts of holidays off.

But times have changed, as people say. I have a friend who works in a bank. She doesn't work in the lobby, helping customers; no, she works in one of the back offices where they push papers around and never really even touch money. So, she's a banker, since she works in a bank. But bankers hours have changed. She and her co-workers arrive before the bank lobby opens, they work a full day and trudge out as the guards lock the building up, past the ATMs and the still-open drive-through windows to their cars in the parking lot. And this year, when Christmas and New Year's Day happen on the weekend, they don't get any time off for them. Some of the back offices in these large banks have more than one shift. How would you like to be a banker working the 'graveyard' shift?

No doubt in my mind; bankers hours aren't what they used to be.

Grinch Days

I always like Christmas. It almost always disappoints, but I still like the season.

I DON'T like seeing Christmas decorations going up before Halloween has arrived, nor when the Christmas music starts almost before those Halloween costumes are discarded. It seems to me that each holiday deserves its own bit of time, and Christmas does not need to infringe on months that already have celebrations.

So, here's to the tree - which is looking a little bare this year - and here's to all the season's goodies – which I'm not supposed to eat – and here's to all the pretty lights – which I thoroughly enjoy. Hope you have a good one.

Bicycle to Nowhere

Okay, planning bicycle routes for an entire city that has (virtually) none can't be an easy job. Still, I have to wonder that that bike czar in Omaha is thinking. I haven't seen a LOT of progress so far, but a few streets have been reconfigured to introduce a bike lane on the side.

Last winter, St Mary's underwent some major reconstruction between 29^th and Leavenworth, about 3 blocks. It now has a bike lane on the right side … for 3 blocks. Where the bikes are supposed to come from to use that bike lane, or where they are supposed to be headed, I haven't figured out.

Further out on Leavenworth, the two-lanes-each-way has since been reconfigured into two lanes headed downtown and one lane headed out, to make way for a bike lane. This puts a bit of a crimp on the evening traffic that used to head out of downtown using Leavenworth, but I'm sure the bicyclists love it. The new bike lane appears around 53^rd Street and continues all the way to 60^th Street, where most of the automobile traffic turns south, but I believe the bike lane continues down the steep hill into the park. I suppose people might be willing to take their bikes into the park, but why/how did they all congregate at 53^rd Street?

These bike lanes I've mentioned are one-way, headed west. I have not yet seen any bike lanes headed east. Is that a hidden message, like, "Go west, young bikers?" So, I suppose he's doing something during those 40 hours a week he supposedly is working. But it has been several months. I don't spend all my time driving around Omaha looking for bike lanes, but … how hard can it be to decide to put a bike lane here for 3 blocks, and another here for 6 or 7 blocks … and not bother to connect them up?

I don't know how much longer his 'grant' job is going to last, but I certainly hope Omaha sees more out of his office than this little bit of nonsense.

Make Way for Bicycles

Some months back, well after the City of Omaha admitted it was having Dire Financial Difficulties, the city officials were thrilled to announce that they had hired a 'bicycle czar', someone to decide where and how bicycle lanes would be created so that people could use these devices to travel about town, thereby saving gasoline costs and lowering the smog emissions, since there would be fewer cars on the streets. I believe the local paper even stated what that person would be paid, and it certainly seemed an exorbitant salary, considering how many city employees were facing lay-off at the time. The paper went on to say, however, that the position had been created and was being paid for by a federal grant the city had received. So that made it okay, was the implication, because the city wasn't actually paying for this person to do his job.

Really? I keep wondering if that reporter really is that simple, or if s/he thinks the readers are.

Perhaps nobody explained to the reporter that when the federal government hands out a grant that creates a new position, that grant has strings attached. It's my understanding that one of those strings is that after the duration of the grant, the entity (city) must continue the position, at the same salary, for a certain period of time, perhaps 5 years. I'd love to know how long the grant will pay this person's salary, because after that point, the city certainly will be paying for this person to do his job! And since the current poor economic times seems to be long-term, I expect the city will still be in Dire Financial Difficulties when that bill comes due.

American Dream

Is the American Dream dead? Or just ill?

In my parent's day, the American Dream was to own their own home, for the kids to have a better life than they'd had. They did own a house, at various times while I was growing up. At other times, they rented. My husband and I have owned this particular house for 20 years this month, so in that respect, we're doing pretty well. Other families, and especially younger families, are having a much tougher time these last few years in getting and keeping ownership of a home. I don't know exact figures, but that aspect of the American Dream seems to be slipping away.

As for the kids having a better life than the parents – my parents imagined the correct route for that was to see that we all went to college. So far, out of 3 children, 1 ½ of us have finished college. I still have a ways to go to get any kind of degree, but I've made it through over half the required credit hours towards that degree. The youngest of us has never started college. But since neither of my parents ever had any college classes – and lately, there's been some confusion over whether or not one of them even graduated high school – then it seems that my generation did better than they did.

In my husband's family, both parents were professionals, with all the schooling that that entails … some kind of degree, I'm sure. Of their 3 children, all of them have at least two master's degrees, and one also has a doctorate. So far as 'better education' goes, they definitely all have their parents beat, but that has not necessarily meant 'better off financially'.

Which brings us to our kids. Ours are still young, just out of high school a year or so. They have both taken some classes at the local community college. One signed up at a private junior college, and went deep into hock to do so. The junior college promptly lost its accreditation, but he still has to pay those loans back. A lot money down the drain for nothing. It'll be a long time before he can get back to school, if he every makes it.

I think that's why these types of economic times are called depressions. Everybody gets depressed. Everybody gives up. Welcome to the American Dream on Life Support.

Taxing the UnRepped

For years, the City of Omaha has taxed its citizens by charging an annual 'wheel tax', which was collected when car owners renewed their state license plate. It always seemed a little unfair to me, as those who didn't have a car didn't pay, and those who had an old car paid the exact same amount as someone who had a brand new one. But nobody asked me my opinion on the subject.

At one point, the wheel tax was extended to those who worked in city government but didn't live within city limits. However, they only charged those people the wheel tax on one car, probably because they had no way of knowing exactly how many vehicles that person might own. This was even more unfair. Employees were being taxed based on who they worked for! But of course, their only recourse was to quit.

The city has its reasons for wanting to get as many people to pay this tax as they can manage. Supposedly, it pays for maintaining the streets, which all those auto tires are busily wearing out. Do other cities pay for street repairs by charging a wheel tax? I don't know. I wish I did.

The most recent proposal from the Omaha city government is that everybody who works inside the city limits – but lives outside the city – should have to pay this wheel tax. I haven't heard how they propose to make that happen. Are the employers supposed to collect it and turn it in? I'm sure they think they've found a way. But wait a minute. People who live outside the city don't have the opportunity to vote on whether or not they should have to pay this tax. They don't have any representation within City Government. Isn't that Taxation Without Representation? Didn't we once fight a war against that very concept?

So, what comes next in this effort to make people pay for the street asphalt they use up by driving through town? Why doesn't the city erect toll booths on all the roads coming into town, all the exits from the interstate, and charge for the privilege of entering the City of Omaha? Think of all those tourists who pause to use a hotel or grab a tankful of gas, a bite to eat. Aren't they also using up the asphalt? Shouldn't they have to shoulder their share of the replacement cost? Of course, they aren't represented on the City Council, either, but such things don't seem to matter in Omaha.