If you have read this blog for more than 10 minutes you know that I am pretty anal when it comes to my finances. No, that's not strong enough. What is beyond anal? Hmmm....got it. The large intestine. I am entering a new phrase into the English vernacular. I am large intestinal about my finances.

We learned back in March of '07 after the student loans were paid off that 4 years of college cost $148,671.84.

Want to know how much I have spent on fuel since 2001: $9,355.99

Or travel since graduating college (2005): $7,040.60

Or movies in 2007: $266.60

Have I proved that I am large intestinal?

But as precise as I get, I still have those months where I say, "Holy crap I spent too much money. How did this happen?"

Enter November.

I typically spend between $700-$900 a month on non-bill expenditures. This includes going out to eat, travel, fuel, movies, groceries, etc...

Now I knew November was going to be higher than normal because I spent one weekend in Chicago (figured it would push to the $900 range) and then Mom and Cassie came into town (figured it would push to the $1100 range).

Needless to say, after I entered all my receipts and realized I spent $1360.32 - I was a bit surprised.

Now as anal large intestinal about finances as I am, I don't really like budgets. This comes as a shock to most. But I find them too claustrophobic. I'd rather deal with "spendable income per day or month."

Now I do a pretty good job of keeping this in my head and controlling spending. But not in November. So what am I to do to make sure I stay within my present budget range? Duh...what everybody does right, build an iPhone app?

I enter the date my credit card bill recycles (January 3, 2009).

I enter the amount I want budgeted for the month ($700.00).

Then I enter my transactions - and it automatically figures out "where I am" in the month.

And I have it anywhere I take my phone.

So even though it is December - which means Christmas presents (done!) - I can stay on track to not have another November.

But this post isn't about my large intestinal habits that I should probably see a psychiatrist about. Nor is it about my nerdiness. Here's my question to all you 20-somethings (and probably beyond) out there: how do you keep your finances in check? Do you set a budget? Do you keep stuff in Quicken or Mint? Or do you just play it by ear and hope it turns out?

It amazes me how quickly money can go if I am not on top of things. And I am guessing we are all in the same boat on that one. Making sure your finances are in check is one of the best things you can do for yourself, your future, your marriage (or future marriage) and your family (or future family). Get in the habit now of spending and saving correctly - it will pay off in the long run.

It past by and I didn't even realize it. I was planning to realize it, but I missed. At the time of this writing it has been 1 year and 6 days since I closed on my first house. I still go back and forth every day if I made the right decision.

On a "head" side, I know purchasing this place was the right long-term financial decision. It set me on a path to have my house paid off by the time I am 55 - and that's a great thing - for me and my future family. Even despite the softening housing market, in the long term, it will be a positive financial move.

Also...I have been surprised how fun it has been to fix and install things around the house. Strangely enough, it has been really affirming.

Also...I have enjoyed that it has become a hang out hub for the few single friends I have up in the "Soccer-Mom Capital" of Alpharetta.

But on the other hand, the "heart" side, I have to admit I feel a bit trapped. Which is illustrated in a couple of ways.

The past seven years I have averaged 24,581 miles of flying when traveling or doing missions. This year I flew only a third of that: 8,312. I know some might not understand - and that's ok - but not traveling the way I have in the past has really made me feel claustrophobic.

Also...I bought the place knowing that Alpharetta was "older" than Buckhead/Midtown/Virginia Highlands, but it wasn't really until this past trip to see Michael were I realized what a difference living in the "younger" part of town can make.

Also...I am not planning on switching jobs. I love my job. But since purchasing this home, I do admit the complications that come with taking a job that is offered outside of Atlanta make that idea incredibly unattractive; no matter how good the job is. I sort of resent that feeling.

On the "let's smack Andy across the face side," I do know that there are literally billions of people around the world who would love to have the good graces to be able to purchase a home, and that I should consider myself fortunate (which I do). But that still doesn't help the back-and-forth in my head a year later.

You'll want to check back on the post starting Monday. I found some archived Post Secret's that I have never seen before, and everyday I am going to post a Secret on the blog that I personally relate to.

Some will be funny, some will be profound - but all will probably be telling as to why I am a bit nuts. To give you a little tease, I thought this one was somewhat relevant to the above post.

Tonight is the final Presidential Debate and I am not watching. In chief due to the fact that neither candidate either a.) knows what the current economic problem is, or b.) won't say it.

Everyone is saying that greed is the problem. Sure. But greed is nothing new. Blaming greed is like blaming boobs for affairs. Or, more generally blaming sin or evil. Sure, it might be the root of the problem, but it doesn't really say anything. So what is the real problem? Immigration and an unstable market since the tech boom.

The History.
Because of the economic policy of the mid to late 80s, there was a lot of generated wealth in the early 90s. But wealth can only go so far before even the extremely wealthy don't know what to do with it - so they become venture capitalist and invest in other companies. Thus generating more wealth.

Now in the mid 90s, the digital revolution was ramping up, so all the 80s generated wealth got pumped into tech companies. This created a bubble that ultimately burst on March 10, 2000. But just because an industry burst, doesn't mean there is less money out there per se.

So the hot new thing out there was real estate. Since everyone was making hand over fist in the tech growth, real estate values sky rocketed. Hold on to that thought for a moment.

Also due to the economic growth during the mid-90s, immigration from Mexico grew exponentially. This new "cheap" labor meant that building new houses was incredibly cheaper to do so.¹

The Perfect Storm
So the perfect storm for developers and lenders which allowed greed to succeed was a large influx in cash to the real estate markets and an equally large decrease in the cost of developing. Thus profit margins were widening by the day, thus spurring more growth and greed.

But the problem is that housing isn't a commodity for the most part and there is only so much demand. Thus, a builder can develop property very cheap, but sooner or later their isn't the demand for said property. Thus, we have the housing burst of lets say 2007.

The Future
So what's the next "burst?" Well, where is all money being driven to because of speculation in this unstable market: energy. Sure, we will have some advances in the next 10 years in the energy sector because of the influx of cash and the increased technology. But that sector currently is driven widely by speculation and thoughtless investing. This will lower oil and energy prices (*cough* like the mid-90s²) and thus potentially repeat the cycle.

The Presidential Race
So what does this have to do with the Presidential Debate. Neither McCain or Obama seem to understand economic policy. And this is where if McCain would wake up, he might be able to come back.

Economics 101 - practically on day 1 of class - will teach that economic policy takes anywhere from 8-12 years to mature. What does this mean?

• The good economic times of the 1950s were largely due to the economic policy FDR set in the 40s.
• The poor economic times of the 1980s were largely due to the economic policy of Nixon, Ford, and Carter.
• The good economic times of the 1990s were largely due to the economic policy of Reagan.
• The poor economic times of the 2000s were largely due to the economic policy of Clinton - (and not really helped by Bush - lets be honest).

I will say this. As a legitimately undecided voter, I will vote for the candidate who has the balls to recognize the above and actually put a plan together to address the situation.

My freshman year of college I took Psychology of Religion. It was one of the greatest classes I ever took. It assigned two books. One was my favorite book of all time, Sheldon Vanauken's A Severe Mercy. The other, a book by Erich Fromm, To Have or To Be.

Fromm's book had an interesting premise. He position was that a century ago we were a "being" culture. 100 years and an industrial revolution later, we are now a "having" culture.

One classic example was how a century ago, when referencing marriages, men would say that they are a husband or that they are married. Now, Fromm says, men have a wife. We went from a state of existence to a state of possession.

Same rings true with children and jobs and hobbies and pretty much everything.

And the problem is much larger than just a semantic one.

When I was in 7th grade I took French. The first verb I learned was être - "to be." The second verb I learned was aller - "to go." The third verb I learned was avoir - "to have."

It was far more important for me to know Je suis Américain² before I learned J'ai une voiture.³

Why? Because even at the core of language, being and existing is more fundamental to our human experience than having and owning.

The problem is that in our increasing materialistic world the inverse seems to be true.

Fromm explains the rise in divorce as one of an identity crisis. If marriages are possessions, then like all possessions, when we tire of the marriage we drop it for a new one. As apposed to the idea that if at our core, our existence is tied to that marriage, to drop the marriage would be to drop one's existence - which we would be far less inclined to do.

It truly is a challenge to overcome the social pressure of the "having" culture - and it doesn't get easier with age. I find myself comparing myself to the neighbors and friends far more than I ever did before.

Henry David Thoreau once wrote, "It is preoccupation with possessions, more than anything else, that prevents us from living freely and nobly." I think that is a sentiment Fromm would agree with, and one I should pay more attention to.

I went to Hilton Head again this weekend. It was wonderful. I relaxed and did absolutely nothing on Friday but sit on the beach and listen to music. Had good discussion with Charlie. Watched baseball with Nick. Julia studied her Bar Review materials. Great time. But on the drive down, I paid over $4.00 per gallon for fuel for the first time. In doing so, I think I am the only American that doesn't mind it a bit.

Fuel is in theory at "record highs" right now, but my question is "record highs" compared to what? The 1990s? The 1970s? Let's put this in perspective.

When adjusted for inflation, fuel prices are just $.25 more per gallon than they were in 1979. While this still constitutes a "record high" label, it isn't quite the burdening number most of us think it is.

The chart below shows fuel prices from 1979 to 2008. Look how the red line (actual price paid) jumps significantly higher, but when adjusted for inflation, it stays relatively the same.

Think about the price you paid for your house in 1982. Doesn't your current house look ridiculously expense when in comparison to your 1982 house? It's the same with fuel.




The problem lies in perception. For some reason we bought the idea that the fuel prices of the late 90s were somehow the norm, instead of an anomaly. I remember one time filling up at a Speedway station in Fort Wayne, IN for $.76 in the summer of 1999.

But these fuel prices were largely due the Asian market crash of the 90s (as well as the tech burst) and should never have been thought of as normal. In fact, they were further from normal on the low-side, as fuel prices are now on the high-side.

Now we all know I am super anal retentive. So I went through my records and pulled up every¹ fuel purchase I made from 2002 to 2008. When adjusted for state differential and inflation, I am paying approximately $2.00 more a gallon now when compared to 2002. So it is easy to see why it "feels" bad. But in 2002 we were still $.25 below the adjusted norm of 1979.




So does this mean fuel prices are where they should be? No. I am not going to say that. It is slightly high. But these things will correct themselves over time. What I am saying is that for most of us out there, the pain at the pump is more a mental problem than it is an actual budget problem.

And heck, at least we aren't in Europe paying over $9.00 per gallon for fuel. We have much to be grateful for.

P.S. For those who want the charts of date you can find them here: Fuel Prices Workbook. And if you really want to see an example of my anal retentiveness, you can see my Fuel Mileage Worksheet for my Honda Civic.

Right where the 605 and the 210 meet in Los Angeles, I distinctly remember the billboard when driving back from the beach in Orange County. It was a CitiBank billboard and it had the following phrase: "Your college girlfriend called and wanted to remind you that you were once poor and happy." Even at 21, the phrase resonated somewhere deep within me and I have never forgot it.

Fast forward 4 years. If you would have told me about the job I have now and the money I am making and the lifestyle I am living back in 2004, I wouldn't have believed you. It's been a whirlwind couple of years. But am I happier? Was life not better from the cheap seats?

Don't get me wrong, I am sure life is incredibly more stressful when you can't pay the bills. When you worry about foreclosures and debt and providing the basics for your family. It's just an inevitable that life gets complicated as the years go on, but does that by definition mean life gets less happy?

This weekend was a pretty fun one for me. Friday night, Justin and I saw the Braves series opener against the Reds from our seats (the cheap seats). The Braves won, with Hudson pitching a 2-hit, complete game (you never see CGs anymore). On Sunday, my Uncle invited me to the series finale against the Reds at his seats (the good seats) which were 8 rows back from home plate (the photo to the left doesn't do it justice).

But it got me thinking; do better "seats" in life, mean a better life?

What I find unique about most people I know who are "rich," is there is a distinctly different tone they use when referring to the old, "poor" days. There is a fondness there. Talking about beat up cars barely making it home. Eating PB&J for days on end. Not being able to go to movies or pay for cable and just enjoying one another. Are those days lost as we progress?

I am not sure what the answer is. I am only 25, and by American standards, I am not exactly "rich". But maybe that is a good thing. Maybe life is better in the cheap seats and I should enjoy it while I can. Maybe that is what the Bible means when it says:

Ecclesiastes 2:26
To the man who pleases him, God gives wisdom, knowledge and happiness, but to the sinner he gives the task of gathering and storing up wealth to hand it over to the one who pleases God. This too is meaningless, a chasing after the wind.

I, single handedly, have figured out how to end world hunger. I wish I could say this revelation came while in deep prayer, but alas, it did not. It came when analyzing Obama's recently released taxes from 2000-2006. The answer to world poverty: everybody should run for President...

When a President releases his taxes, most of us are just curious what the leader of the free world makes. Not I. I go straight for the "Schedule A" and see how much they gave to charity. Seeing Obama's "Schedule A" intrigued me, so I went looking for as many of the presidential income tax returns as possible.

More than 20 years of Presidential Income Tax Returns + a conceited sense of superiority + Microsoft Excel = one fun afternoon for Andy Borgmann. You can view the result here.

The conclusion: George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were by far the most generous, each of them averaged giving over 30% of their income to charity. Ronald Reagan and would be President Barack Obama would be the least generous, averaging under 5%.

But before I judge Barack Obama too much, he at least made his taxes public when he didn't have to.¹ And lets be honest. Do we really think George HW Bush and Bill Clinton were that generous before their taxes were public?

In 2002, Barack Obama made $259,394. Andy Borgmann made $6,863. In 2002, Barack Obama gave $1,050. Andy Borgmann gave $822.67. In 2002, Barack Obama gave .4% of his income. Andy Borgmann gave 11.99%.

Amazingly, Barack upped his giving to $77,315 by 2005.²

Now I could take this many different ways. But I'll leave the critique of the hyprocsiy of a man who claims to want change the world for the oppressed but has such a piss poor record on giving to Allen Hunt this weekend.

My two favorite biblical narratives about giving are Matthew 6:3 and Luke 2:1-4.

Matt 6:3
But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing

Luke 2:1-4
As he looked up, Jesus saw the rich putting their gifts into the temple treasury. 2He also saw a poor widow put in two very small copper coins. 3"I tell you the truth," he said, "this poor widow has put in more than all the others. 4All these people gave their gifts out of their wealth; but she out of her poverty put in all she had to live on.

While most within the church (including Pastors and "Giving Conferences") need to re-read Matthew 6:3 a bit more, thanks to the IRS, they don't really make that possible for the Presidential Candidates.

But giving isn't about the amount. It is about the percentage. Dropping $50 bucks in the offering plate or to Salvation Army might be incredibly generous according to Jesus. But if you dropped $5000 on QVC purchases in the same week...well...you are materialistic.

Likewise, you can give $500,000 and appear more generous than just about anyone, but if you make $10 million, you are in fact less generous than millions of Americans.

We are all blessed to different degrees. God's challenge for us is to give in accordance to what has been given to us. And those who have been given much, much more is expected.³ Now if only all of us would be given the most powerful job in the world, and consequently our taxes be made public, we would collectively give enough to make a difference.

In the middle of our weekly planning video teleconference, Phil sent me an article from FoxNews about MyFreeImplants.com (warning: I didn't see any nudity "per se" - but it is definitely racey).

Here's the scenario. Women, you sign up to a MySpace-like social networking site, with pictures of yourself and descriptions highlighting your "situation." Situation here meaning that you have small/ugly/disfigured/orange boobs. Men, or "benefactors," you also sign up for the site, but you have to buy credit to do so. Once you enter the site, you then "donate" your credits to these women until they reach the amount needed to get a boob job (which appears to be $6500.00).

Now, before I proceed, I should state that I am really not a boob guy. I will go as far as saying that smaller chested woman are more attractive to me. And I don't mean that in the altruistic, good Christian boy sense (there are plenty of "other" things I am into). But to me, the law of nature comes in too much with large boobs and time + gravity ≠ good situation down the road. So, believe me, I truly don't think this world would be a better place if women were walking around with larger boobs.

As we proceeded in this planning meeting I started to think about all the reasons I am against plastic surgery. My two biggest reasons. #1 It is a huge waste of money (especially in light of all the suffering in the world). #2 It is superficial. But then I got to thinking about it. How are boob jobs any different than braces?

Ok, now I have done it haven't I? But seriously, think about it. Braces cost on average $5000. Boob jobs seem to cost $6000. And I don't care what you say, while I am sure there are a handful of cases where braces are necessary for proper function of the mouth and health, most of us had braces for aesthetic reasons. We didn't (or better yet our parents didn't) want us to be the freaky kid with ugly teeth. So if it is just as much money, and it is just as superficial, why are boob jobs (or any plastic surgery) any less morally or socially acceptable than braces?

I have to admit, I don't have an answer. There is something inside of me that thinks there should be a separation of aesthetic altering procedures, but on a philosophical ground, I can't seem to find the logic in separating the two. I guess I won't get my kids braces...or maybe I'll just get them boob jobs as well.

I drove 434.4 miles in the month of February. If I were to round, my car costs me $630.74 per month in fixed cost. If you add the $48.02 in fuel I used for the month, that brings my total operating expense to $678.76.

So, in the month of February, my car had what the airline industry calls a CASM - Cost Available Seat / Mile - of $1.45. In 2007, United Airlines had a CASM of $.11 on all it's flights. Flying a plane is approximately 13 times cheaper than my car last month.

Most of you are probably bored right now and are pulling up feelings you haven't had since 7th grade Algebra. For that I apologize.

But here is my question. Is Al Gore the only reason I am keeping my car?

The beauty of my location is that I do not live more than 1.4 miles from anything I need - except Jamba Juice which is 374 miles away. In the first map below, I have within the gray shaded box the following:

• My Office
• Super Target
• Kroger
• Chick-Fil-A
• McDonalds
• Pizza Hut
• Starbucks
• Blockbuster
• 22.3 Restaurants (I refuse to count Di Paolo as a full restaurant)

In case Miss South Carolina is having this blog read to her by Mario Lopez and is confused at this point, I have provided three map comparisons with the three most important places in the US (places I have lived) to illustrate my point:

The furthest thing from my home is my office @ 1.4 miles.

In comparison for my Fort Wayne readers out there: that is the distance from Homestead High School to the corner of West Hamilton Rd and Aboite Center Rd - I used to run that for Cross Country practice.

For my Azusa readers out there, that is the distance from West Campus to Alosta Place Apartments.

For Miss South Carolina, that is the distance from The Iraq to South Africa and such as.

For everybody else, well, come up with your own 1.4 mile comparison.

I guess my question is why am I so attached to a $7600.00 expense per year (not including fuel) when I clearly don't need one? People in New York don't seem to mind? Al Gore would be proud, wouldn't he?

But that is the problem. Al Gore has made it cool not to have a car. Like the White People of 1997 who made it cool not to have a TV, we have secretly grown to resent Al Gore and his kind because they have made the right thing to do the cool thing to do and as Americans we hate doing that which is cool. As soon as you do that which is cool, you are cliché and "that guy" - and nobody likes that guy.

I am 61% certain that fuel use increased 312% since the release of an Inconvenient Truth. It isn't that Americans have more places to go. It is that Americans don't like to be told what to do. I think it has something to do with Hitler telling the French what to do, and the American despisition of baguettes.

So it looks like I am hanging on to my car, unless God save the planet, Sean Hannity does a report on why owning a car keeps Osama from recovering from kidney stones. Only then will I be free from this bondage.

I think Capital One just made me the President of the United States. Take that John McCain - it's my week now sucker! I would like to thank my beautiful wife I don't have for her amazing support. My wonderful children I don't have for their letting me ignore them during the campaign. Of course I have to thank the big man, the only one James Dobson listens to, Karl Rove for all the great advice. God bless each of you, and God bless America.

Ok, that might be a bit far, but I seriously think George Washington is pissed.

Think about it. He took on the British. Forged the Patomic in freezing temperatures. Lead a new country in her infancy that in only 200 years grew to the superpower of the world. What is his reward for all this? He gets his face on every $1 bill.

It isn't just Washington though. Through out ages past, the only people that had their face on money were the rulers of the world. Queen Elizabeth. Caesar. Lincoln. And rightfully so.

But then some geniuses (*read self-indulged pricks*) in some (probably) New York marketing firm decided to take George and friend's glory from them when they realized Americans are self-centered and would love the ability to put their face on their money.

So sure enough, I saw an add during the Capital One Game with Michigan & Florida and knew I just had to go for it. After all, I am sure I am exactly the self-centered American those genius pricks were thinking of.

But I have to say I love it. Being the creative, pop-culture (*read loser*) person that I am, it is exactly how I want to pay for my Chick-Fil-A Chicken Sandwich. I don't even sign the back. If anybody questions if it is my card, I am like...uhh look at the front dude!

But what does this say about our culture? Is this just that we are creative people and want to express that when we spend money? Or is it deeper? Does this have larger implications? Does this mean we think we are more important than our leaders? Or maybe that our money (*read economy*), is more important than true leadership.

We want CEOs that make the most money, not lead the best companies. We want Presidents that help our economy the most, not lead our country to greatness. One might argue they are one in the same thing, but when push comes to shove, which do you want? I think Capital One's marketing shows, to quote Jerry McGuire, "show me the money."

While Washington might be pissed I stole his glory, I think he would be saddened to see how his country evolved in her greed.

But I guess the only solace George Washington can take is that even though I am on MY money, I am not on YOUR money. So he still wins. But if you want to kick Washington in the balls, just go ahead and put my face on your new Capital One credit card.