That’s the headline in today’s Post and Courier here in Charleston, and the story is about the city’s efforts to draw up ideas for the next decade.

I’d hate to think about a ten-year plan for me.  I’m trying to work out a one-year plan.  And even that’s a challenge with the word debt written all over it.  I’m angry at myself for letting things get this way.  I’m a fairly intelligent guy, after all, and it isn’t like I couldn’t have seen it coming.  Still, I allowed myself not to see it, somehow figuring that everything would work out one way or another.

At least I didn’t buy a home I couldn’t afford with a mortgage practically engineered to cause financial disaster underwritten by an irresponsible company more interested in a dollar amount than my credit score.

At least I didn’t go buy some flashy, gas-guzzling sports car, wrapped up in some kind of mid-life crisis a few years early, only to be drowning under the still-ridiculous prices at the pump.

But in some ways, what I did was worse:  I can look around my apartment and find virtually nothing to show for the credit card bills.  What did I spend the money on?  Groceries?  Utility bills once in a while when I was strapped for cash?  Dinner out to eat with a colleague when I should have had Hamburger Helper at home?  Yes, some of each.  Too much of each.  Then again, one in each case is too much.

My one-year plan begins with getting debt under control.  I’m working on it, but it’s going to take time.

And I’m not good at waiting.

There was an interesting table in this week’s edition of Parade magazine.  (I know, most of you only open that little insert to read the inane questions sent in to Walter Scott’s Personality Parade.)

But this particular table compared the tax plans of Barack Obama and John McCain to show how much you’d save depending on whose plan became reality.  I’ve received several chain emails lately from rabid McCain supporters promising me how much Obama will raise my taxes.

I’m going to go out on a limb and speculate that most of the people who are forwarding the emails don’t fall into the income category that would make them pay more, and I’ll even speculate that most of the people who stop by here to read this blog don’t fall into that category, either.

But here’s a partial listing from that table:

If you make less than $19,000 income (the bottom 25% of earners):

• Obama will save you an average of $567.
• McCain will save you an average of $21.

If you make between $19,000-$37,600:

• Obama will save you an average of $892.
• McCain will save you an average of $118.

If you make between $37,600-$66,400:

• Obama will save you an average of $1118.
• McCain will save you an average of $325.

In fact, you don’t start saving more with McCain’s plan unless you make more than $111,600, and even then, the difference in savings is an average of $449.

If you are fortunate enough to be in the top 5% of earners, meaning you bring home more than $227,000 a year, McCain will save you lots of money, while Obama will make you pay more…sometimes only a little more, depending on how “elite” you are payroll-wise.

The unfortunate thing about the whole “trickle-down” theory of economics is that giving tax breaks to the wealthy means expecting the top 5% of earners are carrying the entire economy.  Give them all the breaks, the theory says, and they’ll help everyone else.

When was the last time you got a big handout from the wealthy?  When was the last time some millionaire got a big tax break then decided to write you a check to help you pay your bills?

I have nothing against millionaires, of course.  If there are any reading this, I’ll be glad to take any amount they’re willing to send.  But I think that most of us know that the average rich person is rich because he keeps a lot more than he gives.

May that happen to us all one day.

I want that $85 billion dollars the Treasury Department agreed to give AIG.  In exchange, I’ll promise to do two important things:

1. I’ll only pay off my bills and keep not a single extra penny, then give the rest to the next person who’s willing to do the same thing.  Just think how far that much money will go and how many “regular people” this would really help.
2. I promise not to go on some wild junket or spending spree at an exclusive resort to celebrate the fact that my government rescued me from my own stupidity.

AIG, as you probably have heard, was the subject of congressional questioning after it was revealed that the company spent $443,000 on a party to celebrate the government’s bailout.

AIG doesn’t deserve a bailout.  Those who are willing to take the lesson and actually demonstrate that they’ve learned from it are the ones who deserve the help.

I got an interesting peice of mail yesterday from a bill collecting agency hired by my apartment complex.  The amount due was more than $2,000, but it wasn’t until after I opened the letter — and after the moment of initial shock — that I realized that the bill was addressed to someone else!

Someone else who, apparently, once lived at my address.

I’ve had the displeasure of having businesses get a wrong address before: it takes months for them to get it straight if you don’t stay after them.  Stamping “No Such Addressee” on the envelope doesn’t help; I’ve tried.

So I called the number listed for this national debt collection agency.  The man on the other end answered with a simple, “Hello.”  No name of business, nothing.  Just hello.

I explained that I had received a letter at my address that was addressed to someone else, and that I wanted to let them know that there was no such person living at this address.

The guy said, “So you’re telling me that you opened someone else’s mail?”  Way to miss the point that the letter his little company sent was misdirected.  Let’s stick to the real problem here, shall we?

I resisted, though I’m not sure how I resisted, the temptation to begin my response with the words, “Look, jerk…” and said, “Yes, I sure did.  I was going through my mail and paying bills and frankly, I didn’t look at the name until I had already opened it.  But it did come to my address.  It’s not like I raided a neighbor’s mailbox out of boredom.”

“Do you see the account number?”

Oh, I thought, so now it’s suddenly okay that I opened “someone else’s” mail now that you actually need something!  Funny how that works, isn’t it?

I gave him the number and he looked it up.  He read back an address to me and asked if it was mine.  It wasn’t.

He explained — get this! — that the guy’s address had apparently changed, so they sent this to the old one.

“So then you already knew that this was the wrong address when you mailed it?”  Couldn’t let that one slide.

“Uh, yeah.  That’s just a security precaution.  You can discard the letter.”

Riiiiiiiiight.

From now on, I’ll be tempted never look at the name on a letter again.  Out of spite.  But I probably still will.

Well, this morning I did it:  I called the New AT&T and made my displeasure about their erroneous suspension of my internet service for non-payment of a bill I didn’t even know, their cavalier attitude about it, and their failure to follow through with a promised courtesy call, known.

And I found out one more interesting fact:  this payment that was supposed to be due tomorrow, September 10th, was ordered from my account on September 4th, two days before they suspended my service.  The money didn’t actually leave my account until Monday, but they authorized the payment through their auto-pay service on the 4th, then suspended my service two days later because they thought I didn’t pay.

That’s organization, isn’t it?

I disconnected my land line telephone service, thereby joining many people in the 21st century who haven’t had one in years.  I’ll happily rely on my iPhone for all telephone service.  (Yes, I do realize that the iPhone is also an AT&T property, but it’s out of AT&T Wireless, a division that seems completely separate and far better at customer service than the New AT&T seems to be.)

I did retain my internet service at home, and even though there’s a $5 fee for having internet service without an accompanying phone line, I don’t have to pay all of the taxes and FCC costs that go with the phone service, so I’m still ahead.  I figure, counting telephone service, the calling plan with the features I needed to block annoyance calls, and my unlimited long distance plan, I’ll be saving somewhere around $80 a month, plus about another $15 or so from cable.

That’s money I can use to pay off a credit card sooner.  I can live with that.

I received a note from my apartment complex office today that referenced the situation with Comcast, the local cable provider.  As you may recall, just days ago, I was considering the “unthinkable” action of canceling cable service to get some bills paid.  The letter says, in part:

“We have entered into an agreement with Comcast to provide its Digital Starter service as a new amenity for our residents.  You will continue to receive a monthly bill for any services and equipment that you obtain through Comcast that are in addition to the Digital Starter service.  The channel line-up for Comcast’s Digital Starter service is attached.”

What that says to me, unless I’m missing something, is that everyone gets this lineup, and since it’s a “new amenity,” it ought to be covered in the rent; that is to say, I ought to get that service for nothing.  If I subscribe to cable internet, or cable HD or cable anything-else, which I don’t, then I should have to still pay for that stuff separately.

Does anyone else read anything different?

I’m not sure that’s what they mean, but that’s how I read it.  In any event, there appears to be no way to opt out, so it is what it is.  If it’s truly free, that will save me about $50 per month.  If it’s discounted at all, I’ll take those savings, whatever they are.

Meanwhile, on Saturday, after raising a stink with the New AT&T over their abrupt suspension of my internet service when I in fact had a zero balance with my account, I was promised that my service would be restored and that I would receive a courtesy call from a billing representative by Monday morning at the latest.

It’s no longer Monday morning, as far as I can tell, in any part of the world.  The call never happened.  While my service quietly came back on hours after my call, there was no apology, no explanation, no offer for discounted service to compensate for their inconvenient blunder.

I called their billing department this evening just to find out the logistics of canceling local telephone service but keeping internet service.  I learned that if I do internet-only, it will work out to be about $50 per month.  But that beats the roughly $130 a month I’m currently paying for local telephone service, unlimited long distance (which I really don’t need), internet, and the complete choice package that allows me to block a lot of telemarketers and fax machines, but fails to block them all, anyway.

The office that would have to cancel the telephone service, conveniently, wasn’t open.  Typical.  They can take payments any time, but they restrict the time you can cut your service.  But tomorrow morning, I’ll take a leap into the 21st century by dropping my land line and maintaining cell phone service only.  (I never realized how many other people have already eliminated land line service!)

So if I’m right about the way I read the cable letter, between that and my phone service, I could be saving up to $125-130 a month, which will be a nice chunk of change to pay off a few bills early, particularly that little transmission bill.

I’m all for that.

• UPDATE:  Of course the “free” idea was far too good to be true.  Cable will be $40, but based on what I’ve been paying, that’s still about $15 bucks off the bill.  Every little bit helps, right?