Watch Rick’s Column Here or Listen to Rick’s Column Here

Until recently, I was convinced that Ebenezer Scrooge was a conservative, at least before his transformation. His refusal to give to the poor at Christmas time personified our perception of a conservative as cold-hearted, stingy, and even miserly. I would also have given you high odds that his loyal clerk, Bob Cratchit, was a liberal.

Now I am not so sure.

In late November, John Stossel’s ABC special 20/20 report, “Cheap in America,” changed that probability 180 degrees. Indeed, the preponderance of the evidence suggests the stingy-hearted Scrooge was most likely a liberal and Cratchit a conservative.

Let me explain. Stossel’s report centered on Arthur C. Brooks’ new book, Who Really Cares. The book examines our societal myths around giving and then reveals the facts. The focus of the report was on what and how much Americans give. It caused me to pause and consider a few of my own unconscious beliefs around giving.

One of those was a belief that “liberals” give more than “conservatives.” I’ve always assumed that those who are philosophically identified as champions for the poor and downtrodden would give more to those in need than would conservatives. Conservatives, after all, philosophically embrace individual responsibility and capitalism, both attitudes having less "heart" than a more liberal philosophy, right?

Not true. According to Brooks, of the top 25 states where people give the greatest amount of money in relation to their income, 24 are "red" states. In fact, conservatives give 30% more than liberals and actually make less. This turns my stereotyped money scripts on their noses. There must be some mistake. Why are the people identified more with championing the issues of the poor apparently champions in word only and not in their actions? That almost sounds hypocritical.

Stossel suggests that at the core of progressive philosophy is a belief in large government, as well as a belief that it is the government’s responsibility to aid and support the poor through the redistribution of wealth. People who believe it is the government’s job to make incomes more equal are naturally less disposed to giving.

Another predictor of a person’s generosity is whether the person is religious. Religious individuals give four times more to charity than the non-religious, and interestingly enough, not just to their churches. They give more to other charities, to the homeless, and even more blood to local blood banks.

I found it interesting, however, that Stossel suggests the best thing for billionaires to do is not to give away their money at all. He contends that the wealthy, through investing their money, create more jobs than government or charities. According to him, “Creating jobs is a better way of helping people than giving money away.”

Maybe tight-fisted rich liberals who don’t give to charities aren’t as selfish and "Scroogish" as Brooks’ findings would seem to indicate. By keeping their money working to create more money, via creating jobs, they may actually be doing more for the poor. To me, this sounds like what I’ve always thought of as classic conservative thinking and behavior. Now we know it is just the opposite, since conservatives are givers and liberals are hoarders and even the real “job creators.”

Could it be that the conservatives who give are really the liberals, and the liberals who keep their money are really the conservatives? I suspect that once this information is disseminated, there are going to be a lot of very unhappy liberals who find out they are really conservatives.

That shock may be greater than the shock Ebenezer Scrooge felt when he saw his ghostly visitors. But who knows? The experience may be equally life-changing.

To Watch Rick’s column:  Click Here or To Listen to Rick’s column:  Click Here

One of the concerns parents of young children have around Christmas is teaching the kids to value giving as well as receiving. Many of us have difficulty with our own contradictory impulses. We don’t want to turn our kids into greedy little monsters, but at the same time we want to give them the best gifts and experiences we can.

This week I had a chance to think about this dilemma in a new way. I was talking with my daughter about our cancelled November family vacation. Due to last-minute chicken pox, we weren’t able to go on our planned Athens/Istanbul/Egypt/Rome/Barcelona cruise. Instead, we’re taking a shorter and, to me, less interesting cruise. As you read this, I may be on a beach somewhere in the Caribbean.

My daughter almost certainly will be on the beach. As we talked about the changed vacation plans, tears welled up in her eyes and she said, "Dad, the Caribbean cruise is my dream vacation."

"So you’re really glad that Davin got the chicken pox and our European cruise was cancelled?" I asked.

"Yes. Dad, I’ve wanted to go to a beach for years now. I mean, you can only look at so many columns and crumbling rock."

Twenty years ago, I am positive my reaction would have been, "Oh, no! Am I raising a spoiled little brat?" At the ripe old age of ten, London has been to Europe at least four times. At that same age, I was pretty much resigned to the fact I would probably never have enough money to travel abroad.

Instead of responding in that manner, however, I was intrigued by her thoughts. Actually, quite pleased. While I do my best to find great values in cruises, it still costs about 50% more to take the kids to Europe than to the Caribbean. Before London had finished her sentence, I had calculated that Marcia and I could hire a babysitter for two weeks of "Parents Only Time," plus take the kids on a separate Caribbean cruise, for the same money it would cost to take them on the European cruise. It would be a win-win for all of us—a beach and kids club vacation for the kids, plus time for Marcia and me to pursue our passion of seeing the world.

This conversation reminded me that choosing "the best" for our kids doesn’t necessarily mean getting the gift or experience that is the most expensive or that seems the most attractive to us as adults. A good example of this might be the traditional family dream vacation to Disney World. For toddlers, who need naptime and who are too little for most of the exhibits, a place like Disney World is too big and overwhelming. They’d be happier with a couple hours at a local attraction like Rapid City’s Storybook Island.

So if you weren’t able this Christmas to get your kids "the best" gifts, don’t feel you’ve failed them. They may well be just as happy with something less lavish. Remember, too, that today’s must-have toy often ends up as tomorrow’s disregarded clutter.

A case in point. My son, with enough toys in his room to fill a flea market booth, has spent hours this week playing in the dirt of a planted pot. He assembled the volcanic rocks into a manger for the baby Jesus from our nativity set. Today the only other actors are a few sheep. Mary and Joseph were there yesterday, but I guess today they are out shopping. Maybe they are looking for the perfect gift for their special child.

OK, so the cake didn’t flame properly, but that didn’t really matter. It was the best plum pudding ever. At least that was the opinion of those who had ever had plum pudding. And the brandy butter that topped each steaming hot piece was scrumptious.

You may remember, in the movies made of A Christmas Carol, that the highlight of the feast is when the lights are turned out and Mrs. Cratchit brings in a flaming dessert, the plum pudding. This presentation is traditional in England, so when the cake doesn’t flame, they consider it a disaster, as did our English caterer, Cathrine. However, she was the only person who thought the lack of a properly flaming pudding was a problem. The pudding was so good, no one else really cared!

This is not to say that the dozen or so other goodies handmade by Catherine weren’t good, too. We had scones with clotted cream, mince pies, marscapones, and other goodies, of which I’ve forgotten the names. 

We even had English "poppers," a traditional English Christmas tradition where two people pull on a wrapped up tube and the person left with the majority of the popper wins the nifty little gift inside.  Here is a picture, including all of your loyal staff–Tyler Pruess, Darla Creal, Rick Kahler, and Lindsay Luper–wearing their "popper" gifts. I want to assure you that there had been no over-consumption of alchohol or plum pudding that induced those in the picture to don the silly hats and mustaches! 

When you added the wonderful conversations and interesting people that were at the party, our annual Christmas Open House was indeed a heartwarming event. Our thanks to all who attended.

The financial press is taking advantage of the season to review The Financial Wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge, the book I co-authored with Drs. Ted and Brad Klontz. So far the reviews this month have reached a readership of over 1,700,000 people. I am hoping that just 10% of them will buy the book!

Here are the links to the recent reviews by Eileen Smith of the New Jersey Cherry Hill Courier-Post, Susan Morris of the The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review, and Greg Wiles of the Honolulu Advertiser.

In her review, Morris pens, "If you like self-help books (I do), you may find the exercises in the book useful. Ebenezer Scrooge transformed himself in 12 hours. It’s likely the rest of us will take considerably longer. But it’s never too late to start."

They were both great reviews, even considering the fact that the copy desk of the Tribune decided to improve upon the spelling of my name.

No, I am not talking about the famous Christmas carol, Silent Night.  Neither am I talking about a chemical high or scaling a mountain at night. I am talking about the Dow’s new high that it hit last Thursday that, once again, was found anywhere but on the front pages of newspapers. 

This is good news! When any investment or financial trend starts gracing the front pages and the covers of financial publications, the party is usually winding down. I said last month that this bull market would probably be with us for a while, and so far that’s been the case. The fourth quarter was another outstanding one for diversified investors, just like the fourth quarters of the past three years.  Maybe there is something to the "sell in warm weather and buy in cold weather" philosophy.

To Listen to Rick’s Column:  Click Here or to Watch Rick’s Column:  Click Here

It seems almost obligatory this time of year to write a column about giving. Pressure to give, give, give is everywhere. Ads urge us to buy everything from sweaters to screwdrivers to SUVs on the grounds that they will be perfect gifts to delight our loved ones. Charities send out solicitation letters. "Angel tree" displays in malls and bell-ringers in front of stores hope we’ll share some of our shopping dollars with those less fortunate. All of it can be overwhelming.

We all have our own unconscious beliefs, or money scripts, when it comes to giving. In addition, we’re surrounded by beliefs our society and religions have about giving. Both the personal and the societal beliefs can range across a broad spectrum:

"It’s better to give than to receive."

"At this time of year, good people help the needy."

"You have so much that you have an obligation to share."

"Giving takes away people’s initiative to take care of themselves."

"If poor people weren’t so lazy, they’d provide for their own kids at Christmas."

"There are plenty of agencies to take care of those who need help."

Like all money scripts, all of these contain partial truths. Giving, whether to family members or to charity, is not a simple black and white issue. Some of the questions it raises might include: How do you know whether you are helping people or enabling them to avoid helping themselves? How do you give to children without encouraging them to be greedy or feel entitled to the latest and greatest of everything? How do you balance helping others and taking care of yourself?

One often overlooked factor is whether the giving is done more to help the recipient or to help the donor feel better. For example, I remember being in a church group one evening when people were discussing giving. Two of the women there, years earlier when they were struggling single moms with young children, had experienced people from a charity coming to their doors with gift boxes of presents and food for Christmas dinner. Both of them had been humiliated and mortified rather than pleased and grateful. The well-intentioned gifts had felt like a judgment that they weren’t capable of taking care of their own families. No one had asked first whether they wanted or needed any help.

Giving can sometimes be an attempt to hold onto people, to make up to them for one’s past failings, or to be loved by them. One common example of this is divorced parents who overspend on gifts for their children. Public giving may be a way to look good or to gain acceptance or recognition in the community.

One way to respond to the complicated issue of giving is to avoid it. You can close your wallet completely, out of fear that you’ll be taken advantage of, fear that you’ll offend, or simple frustration. Another response is to try to give to every charity that asks and to spend yourself into debt buying lavish gifts for everyone you care about.

Neither of these makes a lot of sense. Like many other of life’s decisions, the question of how to give, how much to give, and to whom is a personal, individual matter. There isn’t a formula for doing it right.

The only suggestion I have is that you give as consciously as possible. Consider the beliefs behind your giving. Discuss giving and receiving with your spouse and your kids. Stop and think before you decide to give or not to give. Then you’re more likely to give wisely and with thoughtful compassion.

Watch Rick’s Column Click Here  or Listen to Rick’s Column Click Here

This time of year, I see Ebenezer Scrooge everywhere. My office is decorated with figurines of Scrooge and Tiny Tim, various editions of A Christmas Carol, and other representations of the classic story by Charles Dickens.

This isn’t necessarily because I want to take Ebenezer Scrooge as a role model. Oh, I suppose that, up to a point, being associated with English literature’s most famous miser is not a bad thing for a financial planner. Only up to a point, however. I’m pleased to have clients think of me as "thrifty." I’d prefer they didn’t regard me as "stingy" or "miserly."

It’s an important distinction. "Thrift" is prudent, careful management of money and other resources. "Stingy" is a lack of generosity, with a connotation of meanness and selfishness. "Miserly" takes hoarding to a dysfunctional extreme. It implies a lack of conscious choice.

That lack of choice is exactly what makes Ebenezer Scrooge such a useful figure in my work with clients. In recent years, I have begun to use his story as a metaphor for helping people change the way they think about money. I’ve even used it in a book, The Financial Wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge, co-authored with Dr. Ted Klontz and Dr. Brad Klontz.

During his unhappy, lonely childhood, Ebenezer Scrooge developed a set of unconscious beliefs, or "money scripts," that he carried into his adult life. Among those were beliefs that having more money was the way to happiness, that spending money on himself or others was wrong, that people could not be trusted, and that money was more important than people.

The quality that most people associate with Scrooge is his life as an unhappy miser and his attitude of "Bah, humbug!". Yet what’s most important about A Christmas Carol is his transformation to a joyful, generous man. The visits of the Spirits of Christmas Past, Present, and Future helped Scrooge understand that his beliefs about money were false. With the guidance of the Spirits, he was transformed into ". . . as good a friend, as good a master, and as good a man as the good old city knew . . .".

If Ebenezer Scrooge could change his deep-seated, painful need to hoard every penny, there is certainly hope for the rest of us to change our destructive financial patterns. We may not have magical ghosts to help us transform overnight, but we certainly have the same ability as did Scrooge to become joyful and generous of spirit.

The Christmas season has become far more complicated than it was in Scrooge’s time. The pressures of shopping, decorating, entertaining, and traveling can trigger all kinds of less-than-ideal financial behavior. You might find it helpful to re-read A Christmas Carol, not simply for the story, but for some possible insight into your own money scripts. The stress of the holidays can help you begin to identify some of your habitual money behavior that you might want to change.

If you’d prefer to listen to Scrooge’s story, as portrayed in The Financial Wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge, you’re welcome to join me by telephone or online for a special recitation. (You can register at www.kahlerfinancial.com.) It will be at 4:00 p.m. MDT on Thursday, December 14, and will subsequently be available on my website as a podcast. I’m looking forward to sharing one of my favorite Christmas stories.

In writing A Christmas Carol, Charles Dickens probably intended simply to create a sentimental story celebrating the spirit of Christmas. His talented pen, however, produced a classic piece of literature. In addition, his psychological insight created a parable that today is as useful as it is enjoyable.

Rick interviewed Glenn Roth, Vice President of Business Development of QMed, about his firm’s new healthcare product for stroke and heart attack victims.  The plan combines the best of a Medicare Part D and a Supplemental Plan, less the doughnut hole, for less money than the partient would otherwise pay.

The only catch is that you have had to have suffered a stroke, heart attack, or have some form of heart disease.

To view the interview, go to the client only section of our website at www.kahlerfinancial.com, or click here.  Download heartline_medicare_special_needs_plan.wmv

Warren Boroson of the Daily Record recently reviewed The Financial Wisdom of Ebenezer Scrooge.  Boroson writes, "The authors make the provocative point that Bob Cratchit, who works for Scrooge and is the father of Tiny Tim, has neurotic money problems, too."

Mark Berg of the Wheaton Sun also reviewed Scrooge, calling it a "good choice" for anyone wanting to improve their money relationship and looking for great Christmas gift.

You can read Boroson’s review here and Berg’s here.

Our workshop on the new Medicare Pilot Program, currently offers in just three states, is postponed to the first quarter of 2007.  We will let you know an exact date.

The workshop is on HeartLine Plus, a special Medicare plan from DAKOTACARE, provides healthcare coverage and much more to South Dakotans who qualify for the unique all-in-one coverage due to certain medical conditions. The plan includes:

• Medicare Parts A and B and Medicare Part D Rx with no gap in coverage
• Brand name drug coverage through the donut hole
• No deductibles or medical copays, enrollees don’t have to buy supplemental coverage
• A Personal Health Advisor trained to coordinate enrollees’ care and help them improve their overall daily life
• Total cost $101* monthly premium plus your Medicare part B premium

To get the same amount of coverage offered by the HeartLine Plus plan, beneficiaries would have to pay several monthly premiums for separate policies. For example, most people would have to pay $189 a month, not including deductibles and copays, for the same coverage. This is a potential savings of $90 a month. And since HeartLine Plus is a Special Medicare Health Plan, you can enroll any time without penalty—even if you are already enrolled in another Part D or coverage plan.

To learn more about HeartLine Plus, visit www.heartline.dakotacare.com or join us for a special presentation December 7th at 11 am at KFG.