No matter how you feel about newspapers these days, in a bad economy, newspapers still have one unquestionably attractive feature:  the Sunday coupon section.

Here in Charleston, the local Post and Courier has devoted the top left corner of its front page for several weeks now to a tally of the dollar amount of coupons and value savings offered in the Sunday paper.  This week, for example, there is up $4,531 in savings.

I’m not sure where they get that figure; it seems a little high to me considering that the average coupon is for 35¢ off a package of Dixie paper plates or $1.00 off any two Quaker oatmeal products.  I’m guessing that they’re also including all of the department store sales circulars, so that when Target sells something for $10 cheaper, that ten bucks goes into the big tally.

If that’s true, it would mean you’d have to spend a small fortune to reap the benefit of that $4,531 in savings.

But still, if you spend that much, that’s still a lot of savings.  And going online to hunt for coupons you can print out just doesn’t have that old fashioned charm of cutting out paper coupons!

You gotta love politics.  At least that’s what they tell me.  I’m very much on the fence on that one.

What I do love is the humor of watching diehard Republicans run to the defense of Sarah Palin’s $150,000 makeover to make her look “presentable” on the campaign trail by either pointing to examples of lavish spending on the other side or by changing the subject entirely.

Sure, there was that $400 haircut John Edwards took so much flack about.  And it was absolutely justified.  No haircut is worth $400 unless the scalp itself could somehow immediately be removed from the head and put on display at the Louvre.  If it’s not worthy of being called a piece of art on that level, it’s not worthy of a $400 price tag.

The last haircut I got cost me about $30, and that included a shampoo, a tip and a bottle of this cool, minty shampoo that helps me actually begin to wake up.

Then there’s that lavish meal that Michelle Obama had at the Waldorf-Astoria hotel in New York.  You know the one, right?  You’ve heard about this one…it has been a popular forward lately.  Two steamed lobsters — not one, but two, thank you — Irianian caviar, and a bottle of champagne…a lavish meal for a would-be First Lady before she even is a First Lady.

Of course, unlike the Edwards haircut, this Obama pig-out was a work of fiction.  According to Snopes.com, the day Michelle Obama is accused of ordering this pricey snack in the Big Apple, she was actually campaigning in Fort Wayne, Indiana.

But I have to admit, the Irianian caviar was a nice touch from the hate-mongers.  Still, heaven forbid that facts get in the way of a smear job.  And it begs the question:  if the other side is so much better, why would they even have to resort to a blatant lie to make themselves win points?

Another example of avoidance is a recent email that pulls quotes from Barack Obama’s books that seem to indicate that he’s going to transform America into some kind of Muslim stronghold.  I’ve gotten this one a few times, too.  The funny thing is, since I actually read The Audacity of Hope, it was painfully obvious that the writer of this email hadn’t.  What wasn’t absolutely made up was taken so far out of context that it might as well have been made up.

But the bottom line is this:  the Republicans were wrong to spend that money.  Period.  And to think that they had shown so much promise when they made fun of that haircut.

The same way Kerry was wrong to make military service a campaign issue in 2004, after he had been so right in condeming the practice when it was used against Bill Clinton in 1992.

Part of Palin’s appeal, apparently, is that she’s just a “regular gal.”  She’s “one of us.”  She and Joe the Plumber may not be neighbors, but they could hang out together sharing beer, nachos and a football game and it’d be completely natural.  She’s not fake, she’s not pretentious.  She is who she is and she’s fine with that.

So why does she need a $150,000 makeover?  Why spend that money?  If she’s so proud — and if she’s so right to be proud — of her modest, frugal ways, then why not parade that look around?

And please spare me the crap about the clothes not being hers.  Sure, they’ll be donated to charity so somewhere down the line some everyday woman will be able to wear a designer suit once worn by Palin herself.

Who cares?

If they’d really wanted to be so charitable, they’d have stayed away from the designer racks, gone to Target for whatever clothes they felt Palin really had to have, and donated the rest of that money to a local women’s shelter so that those women could have gone on a shopping spree for clothes for themselves and their children.  After all, $150,000 goes a lot further and could have helped a lot more people if designer brands weren’t in the mix.

I wish someone would give me a third of that money.  I’d show them what being frugal is really all about.

The email didn’t exactly say, “Don’t get your hopes up,” but that was the gist of it.

This morning, everyone at work received an email stating that a payroll glitch would make it appear to anyone with direct deposit that we’d suddenly received double the normal paycheck for the previous week.  But rest assured, we’d only be paid once, not twice, and when the night’s processing was done at our banks, the phantom extra check would disappear as though it had never existed.

Naturally, I had to check my balance immediately, if only for the brief fantasy of making twice what I normally make for once.  The resulting feeling was definitely better than worrying about bills.

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.

The big economic bailout plan has been described by some as putting the nation “on the brink of economic disaster.”  McCain, who supported it, seems to feel the same way about it, and according to what he says here, that’s why he voted for it.

Seriously.  Am I missing something, or is he?

Over at WorldNet Daily, Drew Zahn writes that corporate greed and a lack of government regulation isn’t the cause of the mortgage meltdown as many are arguing.  Instead, he’s pointing a finger at too much government, in the form of (liberal) activists who pressured the government to pressure Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae into unsound – though politically correct – lending practices in the early 1990s.

In other words, the zeal to make more mortgages available to minorities and those who couldn’t genuinely afford what they were getting into caused the whole thing.

Doggone those liberal, too-much-goverment types.

He quotes economics professor Stan Liebowitx, who called home mortgages “a political piñata for many decades.”

There’s just one problem with this line of reasoning.  Remember the Republican Revolution of 1994, when voters swept more elephants into Congress than you could shake a three ring circus at?  That came after the “early 1990s.”  Republicans controlled Congress back then.  Why didn’t they correct these “mistakes” way back then before the Democrats regained a majority two years ago?  If the Republicans had a dozen years to create legislation that would have prevented the problem before the current crisis ever happened, and didn’t do so, shouldn’t we ask why?

Angry that the Democrats haven’t already handled the problem?  You should be.  But they’ve only been in power a sixth of the time.  If you’re mad at their lack of results, then the GOP ought to have six times as much ‘splain’ to do.

McCain actually said it:  “The fundamentals of our economy are strong.”

Joe Biden said this:

Here’s the transcript for those who can’t see the video:

“John McCain has confessed, and I quote - I want to make sure I get it right - he said, it’s easy for me to be in Washington and frankly be somewhat divorced from the day-to-day challenges people have. Well, he’s right. He’s right. If all you do is walk the halls of power, all you’ll hear is the wants of the powerful. Ladies and gentleman, I believe that’s why John McCain could say with a straight face as recently as this morning, and this is a quote, ‘the fundamentals of the economy are strong.’ That’s what John said. He says that we’ve made great progress economically, in the Bush years. Ladies and gentlemen, I could walk from here to Lansing, and I wouldn’t run into a single person who thought our economy was doing well, unless I ran into John McCain.”

Which argument makes more sense to you?

I worked with a reporter years ago who used to break up that word into multiple syllables for dramatic effect. It would come out something like this:

Un. Be. LEEEEEEVE-able.

I thought of her when I went to get gas this afternoon. I only put $15.00 worth in my car, but the unfortunate person who had last used the pump must have decided to be bold and fill up the tank:

Gas at this station is still under the $4.00 mark, but not by much.  This is the highest amount I’ve ever seen in a gas pump.  And I’d be thrilled if it was the highest I ever see.

I hope they can afford groceries this month.

What would it take for you to buy a hybrid?

A few of us were having that discussion today in the newsroom.  Some car dealers are saying that customers who want the gas efficient vehicles are winding up on waiting lists.  One local dealer says he’s had potential car buyers from several states away calling in search of a hybrid.

Funny thing is, when you visit the car dealers, you quickly learn something disturbing:  hybrids are in no way affordable.

Take Toyota.  Their lowest-priced car is the Yaris, a two-seater that measures just over 12 feet in length.  It starts at a modest $11,550.  For gas mileage, it offers 29/35 mpg fuel efficiency in the city and highway.  Respectable, but not hybrid-level efficient by any means.  Toyota’s most popular hybrid is the Prius, which I have nicknamed the iCar.  It has a 45/48 mpg fuel efficiency and starts at $21,500.

Let’s do a little quick math, courtesy of Toyota’s own payment calculator.  Let’s assume that you have an older car, that’s not in the greatest shape, and that gas prices and this lovely economy have depleted a considerable amount of your savings.  So between the trade in and what you have managed to save, you have a total of $2500 to work with as a down payment.  You may have considerably more than this; many have considerably less.

So you decide on the Prius, because you care about reducing your dependency on oil, and because you want to save money at the pump.  With a 60-month loan at 7.0% interest, you’re looking at a $376.22 car payment.  If you’re already struggling with the rising prices of everything else, that’s likely a deal breaker.

But what about that Yaris?  At under $12,000, a 60-month loan means payments of $179.20.  Less than half of the payment.

Compare Honda’s lowest-priced car, the Fit, starting at $13,950; with their lowest-priced hybrid, the Civic Hybrid, at $22,600.

Then there’s Ford, with a $14,755 Focus, and a $26,640 Escape Hybrid.

I think you can see the pattern here.

So the car makers aren’t making hybrids that are affordable.  And that’s keeping many drivers who really want them from being able to buy.  It’s also keeping the demand for gas higher, which, in turn, is keeping gas prices high.

It’s time for the car makers to do a bit of soul searching:  if they’d lower the prices of their fancy hybrids, they’d sell a lot more of them.  They’d reduce the demand for gas, which should lower the price we pay at the pump.  Since they have to buy oil and plastics that are made with oil products, they’d be lowering their costs, too.   And I just bet that even with lower prices, the increased demand for their cars would still leave them laughing all the way to the bank.

Worse things could happen.

Over at Huffington Post, there’s a new post by Felicia C. Sullivan called “How Not To Crack The Piggy Bank: 8 Ways To Save A Buck!”

It begins with this:

1. View your day job as a freebie-filled mecca: From those mind-numbing 401K free lunches to the decaying coffee pot in the communal kitchen, your workplace is crawling with cost-saving opportunities. Don’t like the coffee your company brews? Split gourmet or whole-sale bags of coffee with your coworkers and make your own brew at work. Also, make nice with the key assistants who manage the conference room and lunch meeting schedules as they have the inside scoop on choice leftovers. However, if you’re not in the know, attend as many “info” sessions as you can bear, put out a candy till so you and your co-workers can have your 3pm fix satisfied at a low cost.

Wait a second.

If you don’t like the free coffee that your company brews, then split gourmet or whole sale bags?  Doesn’t that mean that you’d have to buy it?  Even if you get six co-workers to split a pound of coffee at $6.99 a pound, you have just shelled out an extra buck.

So you haven’t saved anything.

The advice, if you’re really interested in saving money, is to take that freebie coffee your workplace brews, add some of that generic sweetener and/or creamer, and learn to love it.

For free.

I’m happy to report that the remaining seven options make more sense.

For years people have been campaigning to get rid of the penny because they feel so little value in a single cent. 

Recent developments in the cost of metals indicate that there’s even less value in a penny than anyone realized!

For the first time in U.S. history, USA Today reports, it costs more to make and circulate a penny than a penny is actually worth.  And the same thing goes for the nickel:

“The Mint estimates it will cost 1.23 cents per penny and 5.73 cents per nickel this fiscal year, which ends Sept. 30. The cost of producing a penny has risen 27% in the last year, while nickel manufacturing costs have risen 19%.”

The biggest problem, it seems, is that the costs of the metals involved has skyrocketed.  While the metal required to create a single penny is still worth less than a full cent, the metal involved in making a nickel is slightly more than five cents.

Oddly enough, The Mint is one of the few government agencies that makes a profit:  The Mint sells coins (for face value) to the Federal Reserve.  If the coin costs less to make than face value, the Mint pockets the extra change.

The added expenses for the two coins could cut the Mint’s profit by $45 million.  Maybe the IRS can send the Mint an “economic stimulus check” to make them feel a little better.