Current Events in December 2013

Smartphone theft is a big problem. The phones are expensive and they often contain lots of personal information, including the owner's user IDs and passwords banking accounts and credit cards. Worse yet, consumers are often hurt or even killed when criminals try to steal their phones. 

So when Samsung developed a "kill switch" app that would let consumers "brick" their stolen smartphones, it seemed like a big step forward. But Verizon, AT&T, T-Mobile, United States Cellular Corporation, and Sprint have prohibited Samsung from pre-loading the app, and New York Attorney General Eric T. Schneiderman wants to know why.

Schneiderman is the co-chair of the Secure Our Smartphones (S.O.S.) Initiative, along with San Francisco District Attorney George Gascón and London Mayor Boris Johnson. They've been leading an international coalition of prosecutors, police chiefs, attorneys general, public officials and consumer activists in pushing phone manufacturers and carriers to roll out anti-theft technology immediately, to remove the economic incentives behind smartphone thefts.

“For the past six months, the Secure Our Smartphone Initiative has called on the industry to put safety before profits and stop this violent epidemic. Considering this, it’s disturbing that the nation’s leading smartphone carriers knowingly dismissed technology that could save lives,” Schneiderman said. “My office will determine whether these companies allowed their business relationships to influence their ability to take immediate action against theft. In the meantime, our coalition will continue to demand that the industry take every available step to ensure the security of our citizens.”

"When we met with the manufacturers in June there was agreement that these solutions would be implemented within a year," said District Attorney Gascón. "That deadline is rapidly approaching, we cannot standby while the carriers continue to put up roadblocks."

The Attorney General’s letter urges carriers to embrace kill-switch technology “as a simple yet effective way to protect subscribers” from the spike in violent street crimes involving smartphone thefts, which has been observed in communities worldwide. A Harris poll of phone owners found that nearly 10% said their phone had been stolen at one point. Notably, one recent study found that lost and stolen cell phones cost consumers over $30 billion last year.

Anticompetitive issues?

In addition, the letter raises concerns regarding the independence of each carrier in deciding to reject Samsung’s proposed “kill switch” from a competitive standpoint, as the first carrier to feature free anti-theft technology could use that as a selling point for consumers who care about safety and security.

The letter notes, “The first carrier to incorporate a kill switch on Samsung smartphones would burnish its reputation not only as the carrier of choice for consumers who want the best anti-theft technology, but also as a responsible corporate citizen.” Attorney General Schneiderman has also made a "document hold" request, asking the carriers to preserve any documents and/or communications pertaining to the decision to reject the “kill switch.”

Schneiderman is requesting that all the leading carriers provide a detailed explanation of their decision to reject Samsung’s proposal and any other kill-switch technologies. Their replies are due to the Attorney General’s Office by December 31, 2013.

If you doubt that concern over animal cruelty has become a mainstream consumer issue, consider how very quickly Nestle (which owns DiGiornio frozen pizza) ended its business relationship with Wisconsin dairy supplier Wiese Brothers Farm, after an animal-rights group called Mercy for Animals shot undercover video showing appalling scenes of cruelty toward the cows at the farm.

Mercy for Animals turned the video over the NBC News, which broke the story on Dec. 10, and DiGiornio almost immediately announced that it had ceased doing business with Wiese Brothers Farm, which in turn said it fired the employees responsible.

Law enforcement is currently investigating the animal cruelty charges, and Wise Brothers is said to be fully cooperating with the investigation.

Meanwhile, Nestle said in a statement that “We will not knowingly work with companies that violate our Responsible Sourcing Guidelines,” which the company adopted last year.

After years of pressure from critics and food safety advocates, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is moving to phase out the use of certain antibiotics in animal feed.

Currently, antibiotics are added to the animal feed or drinking water of cattle, hogs, poultry and other food-producing animals to help them gain weight faster and use less food to gain weight.

The antibiotics are, by and large, the same ones used in humans to treat disease and the unnecessary use of the drugs is contributing to antimicrobial resistance -- bacteria that are resistant to the antibiotics -- a major threat to public health that is already causing serious illness and deaths among patients whose infections do not respond to antiobiotics.

“We need to be selective about the drugs we use in animals and when we use them,” said William Flynn, DVM, MS, deputy director for science policy at FDA’s Center for Veterinary Medicine (CVM). “Antimicrobial resistance may not be completely preventable, but we need to do what we can to slow it down.”

FDA is issuing a final guidance document that explains how animal pharmaceutical companies can work with the agency to voluntarily remove growth enhancement and feed efficiency indications from the approved uses of their medically important antimicrobial drug products, and move the therapeutic uses of these products from over-the-counter (OTC) availability to marketing status requiring veterinary oversight.

Once manufacturers voluntarily make these changes, the affected products can then only be used in food-producing animals to treat, prevent or control disease under the order of or by prescription from a licensed veterinarian.

Critics say the FDA's plan is risky.

"Unfortunately it requires the drug companies who profit from sales of their drugs to initiate the process," said Caroline Smith DeWaal, Food Safety Director at the nonprofit Center for Science in the Public Interest. "No one is advocating that sick animals should not be treated. But just as our kids see a doctor to get antibiotics, farmers should call a veterinarian, who can assess whether and when treatment with an antibiotic is appropriate. This simple step could save antibiotics as treatment options for future generations of consumers and farmers."

Why voluntary?

The FDA's Flynn said the process was made voluntary because it is the fastest, most efficient way. He said the FDA has been working with associations that include those representing drug companies, the feed industry, producers of beef, pork and turkey, as well as veterinarians and consumer groups.

"Based on our outreach, we have every reason to believe that animal pharmaceutical companies will support us in this effort," said Michael R. Taylor, FDA's deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine.

CSPI's DeWaal said the program will have to be carefully monitored to ensure that it is working as intended. 

American Airlines has been slapped with a $60,000 fine for being less than forthcoming with consumers.

The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) says the carrier violated the federal full-fare advertising rule when its agents told consumers that surcharges levied by the airlines were government-imposed taxes. DOT also ordered the carrier to cease and desist from further violations.

“We expect airlines to be truthful to their customers when they provide information about their fares,” said Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx. “We will continue to take enforcement action when airlines fail to disclose their fares fully and accurately.”

Full-fare disclosure

Under the DOT's full-fare advertising rule, the first price quoted for air transportation made by an airline or ticket agent must state the entire price to be paid by the consumer -- including all mandatory taxes, fees and airline surcharges. Airlines do not have to break out the components of the fare, but if they do, they must accurately show the costs of the services or taxes.

Following a complaint from a consumer, the Aviation Enforcement Office investigated how American described to potential passengers the taxes and carrier surcharges that it collected. It found that on a number of occasions in 2012 and 2013, American’s telephone reservation agents mistakenly told consumers that a variety of additional taxes and carrier-imposed surcharges were collectively “taxes.”

A significant portion of these charges were not taxes but fees imposed by the airline, such as fuel surcharges. In addition, pop-ups on the airline’s website claimed that these surcharges were taxes and, on at least one occasion, American issued a reservation statement labeling surcharges as taxes.

The carrier has corrected its website and provided additional training to its agents.

Mortgage applications have regained a tiny fraction of the huge loss posted at the end of last month,

The Mortgage Bankers Association (MBA) reports its Weekly Mortgage Applications Survey for the week ending December 6 rose 1.0% following a plunge of 12.8% a week earlier. The previous week’s results included an adjustment for the Thanksgiving holiday.

The Refinance Index also increased, rising 2%, but is still 16% lower than the week prior to Thanksgiving. Still, the refinance share of mortgage activity was up 2% from the previous week -- to 65% of total applications. The adjustable-rate mortgage (ARM) share of activity jumped to 8.1% of total applications and is at its highest level since July of 2008.

Contract interest rates

• The average contract interest rate for 30-year fixed-rate mortgages (FRMs) with conforming loan balances ($417,000 or less) rose 10 basis points -- from 4.51% -- to 4.61%, the highest rate since September, with points decreasing to 0.26 from 0.38 (including the origination fee) for 80% loan-to-value ratio (LTV) loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 30-year FRMs with jumbo loan balances (greater than $417,000) increased to 4.59%, the highest rate since September, from 4.49%, with points decreasing to 0.15 from 0.24 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 30-year FRMs backed by the FHA jumped to 4.30%, the highest rate since September, from 4.17%, with points increasing to 0.38 from 0.36 (including the origination fee) for 80%. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 15-year FRMs was up 10 basis points to 3.66%, the highest rate since September, with points decreasing to 0.31 from 0.32 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.
• The average contract interest rate for 5/1 ARMs rose to 3.11% from 3.09%, with points increasing to 0.35 from 0.28 (including the origination fee) for 80% LTV loans. The effective rate increased from last week.

Exmark Manufacturing Company of Beatrice, Neb., is recalling about 7,200 Commercial Walk-Behind Mowers in the U.S. And Canada.

The mower’s blade can break and injure the user and others nearby.

No incidents or injuries have bee reported.

This recall involves 2013 Exmark Commercial 30” Walk-Behind Mowers, model ECKA30 and serial numbers ranging from 313605897 to 313660824. The phrases “Commercial 30” and “Exmark” are printed on the front of the black and red mower. “Exmark” is also printed on the side of the mower. The model and serial numbers are located on a decal affixed to the engine base above the left rear tire.

The mowers, manufactured in Mexico, were sold at Exmark dealers nationwide from November 2012, through October 2013, for about $1,800.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and contact Exmark for a free repair.

Consumers may contact Exmark at (800) 667-5296 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America is recalling 3,795 model year 2013-2014 Tacoma vehicles manufactured July 1, 2013, through October 11, 2013.

The engines of the affected vehicles contain valve springs that may break over time. If the valve springs break, the engine could fail and stall while the vehicle is being driven, increasing the risk of a crash.

Toyota will notify owners, and dealers will replace the valve springs, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin in December 2013.

Owners may contact Toyota at 1-800-331-4331.

The Toro Company of Bloomington, Minn., is recalling about 36,100 TimeMaster and TurfMaster lawn mowers.

The mower’s blade can break and injure the user and others nearby. Toro has received ten reports of blades breaking. No injuries have been reported.

This recall involves 2013 Toro TimeMaster 30” and 2013 Toro TurfMaster 30” lawn mowers with the following model and serial numbers: Model number 20199 with serial numbers ranging from 313000101 to 313020271; model number 20200 with serial numbers ranging from 313000101 to 313007366; and, model number 22200 with serial numbers ranging from 313000101 to 313007146. The phrases “TimeMaster” or “TurfMaster” and “Toro” are printed on the front of the black and red mower. “Toro” is also printed on the side of the mower. The model and serial numbers are located on a decal affixed to the engine base above the left rear tire.

The mowers, manufactured in Mexico, were sold at Toro dealers nationwide from November 2012, through October 2013, for between $999 and $1,799.

Consumers should immediately stop using the recalled mowers and contact Toro for a free repair.

Consumers may contact Toro toll-free at (855) 340-7686 from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. CT Monday through Friday.

Being a frequent flying may have the advantage of racking up airline miles, but there is also a distinct downside. Frequent fliers get to experience the most annoying habits of other travelers.

These days planes fly full. Rarely is there an empty seat beside you. So unless you are in first class, you start off with a feeling of claustrophobia. If the people packed into the seats around you are inconsiderate, without the slightest bit of awareness of how their actions impact their fellow travelers, then even a short hop can be insufferable.

Recently online travel site Expedia.com commissioned a survey of travelers to identify the very worst breaches of airline etiquette. Crying babies didn't make the top of the list but their parents did. 

Child neglect

“Inattentive Parents” came in at number one, with 41% of travelers finding them annoying. A crying baby is one thing but some respondents cited cases of parents ignoring their older children's loud, obnoxious and unruly behavior.

Coming in at number two on the list of annoying airline travelers is the “Rear Seat Kicker.” Rear Seat Kicker is the passenger directly behind you – perhaps with restless leg syndrome – who nervously kicks the back of your seat the entire flight.

“The Aromatic Passenger” comes in third in the survey. Twenty-eight percent said they find the passenger crammed in next to them wearing too much cologne or having gone too long between baths to be highly annoying.

Close behind, with 26% citing it, is “The Boozer,” the passenger who never lets the drink cart pass without ordering another, getting increasingly inebriated throughout the flight. Often it loosens their tongue.

Chatty Cathy

And that leads us the the fifth most-annoying passenger – “Chatty Cathy.” Eighty-five percent of travelers agree that "a little small talk" is acceptable, but ultimately prefer to keep to themselves. Chatty Cathy is oblivious, however.

The complete list, which includes 16 annoying passenger types, will most likely seem very familiar to many frequent fliers. There's “Seat Back Guy,” who insists on reclining his seat as far back in your face as possible the moment the flight attendants allow it.

And no one wants to fly with “Carry On Bag Offender,” who pushes the envelop by loading all their belongings into a duffle bag they try to cram into an overhead bin, all to avoid the cost and hassle of checking a bag. But they don't seem to mind holding up the line as they struggle to get their bags in or out of the overhead bins.

With airlines cutting our food service on most flights it's understandable that a passenger might pack a lunch. But “Pungent Food Eater” thinks up the most aromatic concoction possible to bring out and consume in a tight, enclosed space.

Sounds like trouble

“Audio Insensitive Guy,” who lets his music bleed from his headphones – or worse yet – doesn't even use headphones, was cited by 19% as an annoying passenger. A prediction: “Audio Insensitive Guy's” numbers climb drastically if authorities follow through on plans to allow cellphone use in the air.

With the holiday season bringing packed planes and crowded airports, John Morrey, vice president and general manager, Expedia.com, says travelers should be aware of airline etiquette, including their own.

"Most of us, when we look at the list of offending behaviors, can admit to having committed one or more of the violations,” Morrey said. “So this season, perhaps we can all take care to be as friendly and accommodating to our fellow passengers as possible. After all, we're quite literally all in this together."

Avoiding airport hell

Annoying fellow passengers not withstanding, there are a few things travelers can do to make the flying experience less painful. Businessweek recently laid out its top ten suggestions, a few of which might not have occurred to you.

For example, always enter the airport near the premier/first class checkin. Even though you are flying coach, the elite entrance is usually quieter and less crowded.

If you need help from an airline rep, approach one in the airline's lounge, if you have access, rather than at the ticket counter. Lounge attendants are less stressed and more likely to do everything possible to help you.

Check out the complete list here.

The puppy under the tree with a huge bow around its neck makes for a great Christmas card but it might not be such a good idea in reality. Taking on a pet requires some careful thought that should be removed from the emotion of the holiday season, experts caution.

Veterinarian Dr. Karen Becker, writing in her Healthy Pets blog, say she isn't a big fan of giving pets as holiday gifts. 

“Gifting a family member or friend with a 10- to 20-year commitment to a live animal is not something one should do on impulse,” she writes.

People often don't think about the future – at least not the extended future -- when they think about bringing home a pet. The idea that the animal will be with them for years doesn't sink in until later. Before making such a long term decision, there are a number of questions that should be posed and answered honestly.

Questions to ask

For example, how much time each day can you and other family members commit to your pet? There are work and school schedules to consider and the needs of some animals are greater than others. With ample food, water and a clean litter box, a cat can be quite self-sufficient for occasional lengthy periods of time. A dog, on the other hand, is going to need regular outdoor time.

Some dogs are going to need more attention than others, so you have to know something about the breed you are taking on as a companion. Large energetic breeds are going to need at least a couple of walks each day.

Even if you feel you can't make that kind of commitment, remember that small dogs and cats are still going to require plenty of attention.

Like a baby without a diaper

Then there is the age consideration. Puppies are cute but are similar to bringing home a baby, but a baby that runs through the house without a diaper, chewing on everything. Puppies have to be house-broken but in the best of circumstances, accidents are going to happen in the process.

Families often consider their finances before deciding when to have children and doing the same for pets may be viewed as advisable, because having a dog or cat brings with it financial responsibilities.

In addition to upfront costs like adoption fees, there are other factors that raise the cost of a pet. Large dogs consume large quantities of food. Some breeds will need professional grooming services more often. And for particularly spirited puppies and kittens, obedience training might be needed.

Add up the costs

Before bringing home a pet, be sure to look into all the costs associated with that pet, including costs that could come later in the animals life.

If the pet is for a child, how do you know the child is really that interested? Is the child old enough and willing to take on responsibility? If not, an adult in the household will need to step in and do it.

Giving a pet to an adult friend as a gift is even dicier. You may know your own children and are there to provide back up. Not so with the case of a friend living in another household. And while you may think you know your friend very well, the choice of a pet is a very personal decision, best left to the individual themselves.

If you have children who want a dog, cat or other pet for Christmas, a better gift might be a collar, leash, scratching post or other pet paraphernalia, in anticipation of selecting a pet after the holidays. And when selecting a pet, it goes without saying that choosing an animal from a shelter makes the gift much more special, both for the recipient and the animal who gets a new home.

An Arizona man named Joe Cantrell has been banned from Walmart for life, after he took advantage of the company’s price-matching policy one time too often — or after he menaced and threatened Walmart employees, depending on whether you believe Cantrell’s or Walmart’s version of events.

According to ABC15 News reporting out of Queen Creek, Arizona, Cantrell is a former professional wrestler who’s now disabled, and thus in reduced economic circumstances. In order to stretch his limited funds, Cantrell started heavily taking advantage of Walmart’s price-matching policy: if you can find a lower advertised price on an identical product, they’ll match it.

Nobody disputes this; the disagreement stems from what happened when Cantrell tried going to Walmart to buy ornaments for his family’s Christmas tree. Cantrell says he tried buying Christmas ornaments at their lower advertised price, but the store associate refused to honor the price. So Cantrell complained to store management, and told ABC15. “When I left, he turned around and called the Pinal County Sheriff's Office and said he felt intimidated and threatened. I was upset but never once did I say anything to the gentleman.”

Banned for life

When Cantrell went back to Walmart a few days later, he says, “I was handcuffed, humiliated and embarrassed in front of everybody at Walmart.” Deputies did not officially arrest him, but gave him a court summons and a notice banning him from Walmart for life.

However, Walmart management released this statement to the media:

"We make every effort to make sure our customers have a good experience in our stores. As in previous situations, we attempted to work with this customer. However, in this situation, the associate felt unsafe and so we contacted local law enforcement. We are continuing to cooperate with law enforcement on their investigation."

Speculation: Cantrell looks to be a pretty big guy, possibly big enough that if he’s obviously in an annoyed mood, an associate might honestly feel “unsafe” even though Cantrell may honestly have never intended to come across as any sort of menace or threat.

Different and more cynical speculation: Cantrell admits that shopping and price-matching at Walmart had become a hobby of his, to the point where he'd visit the store upwards of twice a day, every day. Perhaps the store manager was tired of having to honor so many ad matches from the same guy.

Thus far there’s been no explanation of why Cantrell’s initial attempt to price-match the Christmas ornaments was denied in the first place. When we checked Walmart’s website just before presstime, it still clearly promised: “We’re committed to providing low prices every day. On everything. So if you find a lower advertised price on an identical product, tell us and we’ll match it. Right at the register.”

The website does list certain types of advertised prices that do not apply, including going-out-of-business sales and online offers, but so far there’s no indication Cantrell’s Christmas-ornament ad fell into any of the forbidden categories.

GE Capital Retail Bank has been ordered to refund up to $34.1 million to as many as 1 million consumers who may have been talked into signed up for CareCredit credit cards by their doctors and dentists.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau announced the action today, saying that many consumers who signed up for the cards to help pay their medical bills thought they were interest free. But in fact, they were accruing interest that kicked in if the full balance was not paid at the end of a promotional period.

“Medical debt is already a big problem for many Americans. Poor credit card transparency should not be making the problem even worse,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Deferred-interest products can be risky for consumers in the best of circumstances, and today’s action ensures that CareCredit will no longer profit from consumer confusion. The Bureau will not tolerate financial companies that take advantage of patients and their loved ones.”

CareCredit offers personal lines of credit for health-care services, including dental, cosmetic, vision, and veterinary care. Doctors, dentists and other medical providers and their office staff, such as office managers and receptionists, are the primary sellers of the product, offering it as a payment option for their patients. The product is sold by more than 175,000 enrolled providers across the country. There are about 4 million active CareCredit cardholders.

Deferred interest

Approximately 85 percent of CareCredit borrowers are placed in a deferred-interest financing plan. Under this “no interest if paid in full” plan, consumers make monthly payments while CareCredit assesses 26.99 percent annual interest on a consumer’s balance throughout a promotional period, which can range from six to 24 months. If any portion of the balance has not been paid when the promotional period ends, the consumer becomes liable for all of the accrued interest.

According to the CFPB order, since January 2009, consumers who signed up for the credit card frequently received an inadequate explanation of the terms. Many consumers, most of whom were enrolled while waiting for health-care treatment, incurred substantial debt because they did not understand how they could have avoided deferred interest, penalties, and fees. The CFPB began investigating CareCredit after receiving hundreds of complaints from consumers.

During the course of its investigation, the Bureau found evidence of:

• Deceptive enrollment processes: The CFPB found that service providers misled some consumers during the enrollment process by not providing adequate guidance clearly laying out the terms of the deferred-interest loan. CareCredit’s limited involvement during the enrollment process and lack of oversight and monitoring allowed this deception to continue.
• Inadequate disclosures: Many consumers did not receive copies of the actual CareCredit agreements and instead had to rely only on the oral explanations given by the service provider or office staff. Many consumers were enrolled on the belief that it was an interest-free card, and did not understand that they were actually agreeing to a deferred-interest product with a 26.99 percent interest rate.
• Poorly trained staff: Many staff members in the health-care offices, who were responsible for explaining the CareCredit agreement to borrowers, had received little or no training by CareCredit, and relied only on pamphlets. In interviews with CFPB investigators, some providers admitted that they were themselves confused by the deferred-interest card.

Shoes have always been an expensive item for parents, as they try to keep up with their children's rapid growth. Sure, Wall Streeters have long favored those sleek Italian loafers but surely there has never been a time in our history when so many have spent so much for shoes.

You know the shoes we're talking about --  they're what we used to call tennis shoes, sneakers or joggers. They've become must-have items for younger males and are sought-after accessories by just about everyone.

But as is true in so many consumer products, paying a lot doesn't necessarily mean the item will be particularly durable.

Take Nikes for example. Lori of Hawthornwoods, Ill., said her son paid more than $200 for a pair of Nike soccer shoes, perhaps something similar to the CTR 360, which lists for $200.

"The seam came apart and you could clearly see the threads coming undone. Nike claims department denied my request four times. They advised that the shoe had been 'cut' by someone or it was due to an outside abrasion (kicking something other than a soccer ball)? They denied it being a 'workmanship' issue," she said in a recent ConsumerAffairs posting.

"It doesn't matter"

Lori said she managed to talk to a supervisor after a service rep turned down her request for a replacement and was told that further protest would be in vain.

"I was told by the supervisor that it doesn't matter how loyal I have been as a customer, Nike does not offer a loyalty program and doesn't care about keeping customers happy.  When I asked to speak with someone who really cares, I was told to write a letter."

Things didn't turn out much better for "M" of New York, N.Y.

"After a very short time of wear, the material at the top of the sneaker above the laces started separating from the toe guard on my Nike In-Season TR 2s (a place on any shoe that doesn't wear out)," she said. "I tried to exchange them at the place of purchase, Foot Locker, but was told that it was a defect in the shoe, and I should bring them back to Niketown."

"M" hoofed it over to Niketown only to be told that the store didn't stock that model anymore and would only reimburse 37% of the original purchase price.

"When I returned home, my husband found the sneakers on Nike's website at the original purchase price. When I complained to customer service, I was told that without a receipt the sneakers could only be exchanged if there was a manufacturer's defect. Please see my second sentence," M concluded.

Susan of Knoxville, Tenn., bought a pair of boys' Lunarglides -- which can cost around $150 depending on trim -- for her son, expecting that he would outgrow them in a year or so. 

"He wore them to school for two months. Over the summer, he was walking in them, and the webbing split on the left shoe," she said. "Fully expecting this to be covered under warranty, I paid to have insurance and two-day shipping to the claims department. I was shocked that they denied the claim due to 'normal wear and tear.' Never has he worn out a pair of shoes before he outgrew them!"

Like "M" of New York, Susan was successful in getting through to a supervisor but that's where her luck also ran out.

"He informed me that, "Well this is the first pair of shoes that he did wear out.' Refused to do anything. Very disappointed. I have better things to do with my time than talk to people who talk down to me," Susan said.

Back in balance

Now in fairness to Nike, these are just a few complaints but they're typical of the nearly 200 in our database and you'll find similar beefs around the Web. 

While it can be hard for parents to resist pressure from brand-brainwashed children who are convinced they will perish without the proper foot attire, there are plenty of alternatives out there.

New Balance, for one, is an established brand with many faithful followers. It makes a couple of $45 soccer shoes and a large selection of kids' shoes -- many in Nike-like bright colors -- also selling in the $45-$55 range.

Our purpose here is not to endorse any brand or vendor -- although it's worth noting that Amazon, Zappos, Joe's New Balance Outlet and many other online stores sell just about every brand and type of shoe imaginable. No matter how much money you may have, it's worth perusing a few of these sites, if for no other reason than to brief yourself for whatever debate may ensure when it comes time to discuss a shoe purchase with your offspring.

And for what it's worth, I'm standing on a concrete floor at my vertical desk wearing a pair of New Balance 856 Cross Trainers which I bought when they were on sale at Joe's for about $70.  I buy a new pair every year or so, mostly because after that time, they have been exposed to enough dog droppings, thorns, mud, snow and ice that they deserve a rest. I can't remember the last time a pair actually wore out.

There’s a fine line separating “reasonable caution” from “unreasonable paranoia” — unless you’re on the Internet, in which case paranoia is pretty much identical to reasonable caution — especially where our paranoid national-security apparatus is concerned.

The most recent example of this comes from Courthouse News, which tells of a former federal contractor in Alexandria, Va., who is suing a wide variety of federal officials after a Google auto-complete suggestion unfairly made him a national-security suspect. According to a complaint filed by former federal contractor Jeffrey Kantor:

 "In October of 2009, Kantor used the search engine Google to try to find, 'How do I build a radio-controlled airplane …. He ran this search a couple weeks before the birthday of his son with the thought of building one together as a birthday present. After typing, 'how do I build a radio controlled', Google auto-completed his search to, 'how do I build a radio controlled bomb.'"

But even if the government is making a point of monitoring all of our online communications, surely they know better than to think one errant click on a Google auto-complete makes one a terrorist threat, right?

Ha ha, no. Kantor says he was soon visited by federal investigators who played out “good cop/bad cop” routines with him (with the “bad cop” tossing anti-Semitic slurs at Kantor), and then, according the the court complaint, this happened:

"Kantor's coworkers at the Army, including Northrop Grumman contractors Quem Lumi, Stephanie Buchner and Mike Steinbeck, would repeat back Kantor's private information, including emails, websites he went to, library books he got from the library, conversations he made in his house or in his car, phone calls, information about the contents of his house, and then someone would immediately say that there is a person who dropped dead from hypertension, ….      "If Kantor ever got angry after his private information was repeated back (by slamming a cabinet or typing loudly on his computer), the [subcontractor] CRGT and Northrop Grumman employees would tell the same story about how there was a neighbor in their community who seemed like such a nice guy, but then went on a murder suicide … If Mr. Kantor stayed calm after they repeated back his private information, they would instead spend the hour talking about how people drop dead from hypertension. This happened every day for almost three months."

Kantor maintains that these comments were actually veiled threats.

Not the first time

If Kantor’s allegations are true, this wouldn’t be the first time an innocuous Google search resulted in innocent people generated terrifying federal interest. Last summer, in the aftermath of the Boston Marathon bombings (caused by a pressure-cooker bomb left in a backpack along a crowded part of the marathon route), a New York couple had members of a “joint terrorism task force” raid their home.  Michelle Catalano described what happened when the police came to her house:

[T]hey were peppering my husband with questions. Where is he from? Where are his parents from? They asked about me, where was I, where do I work, where do my parents live. Do you have any bombs, they asked. Do you own a pressure cooker? My husband said no, but we have a rice cooker. Can you make a bomb with that? My husband said no, my wife uses it to make quinoa. What the hell is quinoa, they asked. ...

Have you ever looked up how to make a pressure cooker bomb? My husband, ever the oppositional kind, asked them if they themselves weren’t curious as to how a pressure cooker bomb works, if they ever looked it up. Two of them admitted they did.

Turns out Catalano was searching online for pressure cookers (which have legitimate non-terrorist uses -- like, uh, cooking) around the same time her husband was searching for backpacks (ditto). These searches were made on a computer owned by Catalano’s husband’s employer, who apparently checked his employee search logs and then called the cops.

This misunderstanding surely led to some extremely awkward boss/worker discussions in the aftermath of the debacle, though nothing remotely as bad as what Jeffrey Kantor alleges in his lawsuit; neither is Kantor's complaint limited exclusively to the monitoring of employer-owned computers and communication devices. Kantor is being represented by attorney Stephen Swift of Swift & Swift.

There's always someone who thinks cranky old stuff is cute -- you know, wood stoves, iron skillets, even the plain old light bulb, the incandescent kind that Thomas Edison developed back in 1879. Then, as now, this rather crude instrument was basically a glowing wire encased in glass.

There are many rotten things you can say about incandescents but the two most damning are that they don't last very long and they use an awful lot of energy to generate light. In both cases, heat is a big factor -- lots of energy is lost to heat instead of lumens and the high operating temperature contributes to early burn-out. There are some analogies we could make to certain humans here, but let's leave that for another time.

There are those who think the incandescents give off a warm and soft light. These are the same people who long for the days when cars had cranks. 

But regardless of whether anyone likes it or not, the incandescent bulb is going the way of unsliced bread. It's being phased out and will start to disappear after January 1, 2014, when most production will stop. 

We won't be left in the dark, though. There are three major replacements: halogen, fluorescent and LEDs (yes, basically the same technology that powers many TVs and automotive lights).

Halogen lights share some of the drawbacks of incandescents: they burn very hot and are a fire hazard if not installed and handled properly. They do make a lot of light though. And flourescents? Nobody likes them, not least because they contain mercury and are a contamination hazard if broken. They must also be disposed of properly. Good luck with that.

But fortunately, there's the LED, a technology that creates a lot of light with a fraction of the energy required for other bulbs and does so with a minimum of heat, contributing to its extremely long lifespan.

That's the good news. The bad news is that LED bulbs are expensive although the prices are coming down, and the pain of the upfront purchase price is relieved by their operating cost -- a typical 60-watt bulb costs more than three times as much per year to run as a similar LED blub. And yes, they really do last a lot longer. We have installed about 40 LED bulbs in our home and office over the last five years or so and all are still working perfectly. 

Pick the right bulb

Fortunately, Consumer Reports magazine has conducted a more rigorous study and provides a homeowners' guide to picking the best bulbs for a given situation.

Consumer Reports advises shoppers to pay attention, as there are still expensive bulbs being offered. Here are some less expensive, LED options that impressed the experts:

1. For lamps and ceiling fixtures. For 60-watt replacements, Walmart’s Great Value Soft White LED, $10 – the least expensive of the new bulbs in Consumer Reports’ preliminary tests – gives off a warm yellow light similar to an incandescent bulb. So did Cree’s 9.5-Watt (60W) Warm White, $13 and the $14 Philips 11W 60W Soft White 424382. The fully-tested, top-rated Samsung 60-Watt Warm White LED, $30, provides a bright, warm yellow light. For light that’s warm but brighter, and is meant to replace 75-watt bulbs, the EcoSmart 14-Watt (75W) Soft White 726558, $35, is an alternate choice.

2. For recessed and track lights. In preliminary tests, Walmart’s Great Value Soft White BR30 is bright and dimmable, and is the least expensive costing $16. The fully-tested Feit Electric BR30 Dimmable LED, $18, replaces a 65-watt bulb and casts a warm yellow light.

3. For outdoor lights. The MaxLite 20Watt PAR38 100W, $40, offers bright white light in Consumer Reports’ preliminary tests and can be used with some electronic timers, photocells, and motion sensors. The fully-tested TCP 17W PAR38 Flood LED, $40, is claimed to last about 46 years when used 3 hours a day.

The full report on LED lightbulbs, which includes additional lightbulb recommendations is featured in the January 2014 issue of Consumer Reports and at www.ConsumerReports.org.

Low- and moderate-income workers can take steps now to save for retirement and earn a special tax credit in 2013 and the years ahead.

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the saver’s credit helps offset part of the first $2,000 workers voluntarily contribute to IRAs and to 401(k) plans and similar workplace retirement programs. Also known as the retirement savings contributions credit, the saver’s credit is available in addition to any other tax savings that apply.

Still time to act

Eligible workers still have time to make qualifying retirement contributions and get the saver’s credit on their 2013 tax return. People have until April 15, 2014, to set up a new individual retirement arrangement or add money to an existing IRA for 2013.

However, elective deferrals (contributions) must be made by the end of the year to a 401(k) plan or similar workplace program, such as a 403(b) plan for employees of public schools and certain tax-exempt organizations, a governmental 457 plan for state or local government employees, and the Thrift Savings Plan for federal employees.

Employees who are unable to set aside money for this year may want to schedule their 2014 contributions soon so their employer can begin withholding them in January.

What to do

The saver’s credit can be claimed by:

• Married couples filing jointly with incomes up to $59,000 in 2013 or $60,000 in 2014;

• Heads of Household with incomes up to $44,250 in 2013 or $45,000 in 2014; and

• Married individuals filing separately and singles with incomes up to $29,500 in 2013 or $30,000 in 2014.

Like other tax credits, the saver’s credit can increase a taxpayer’s refund or reduce the tax owed. Though the maximum saver’s credit is $1,000, $2,000 for married couples, the IRS cautioned that it is often much less and, due in part to the impact of other deductions and credits, may, in fact, be zero for some taxpayers.

A taxpayer’s credit amount is based on his or her filing status, adjusted gross income, tax liability and amount contributed to qualifying retirement programs. Form 8880 is used to claim the saver’s credit, and its instructions have details on figuring the credit correctly.

Millions saved

In tax-year 2011, the most recent year for which complete figures are available, saver’s credits totaling just over $1.1 billion were claimed on nearly 6.4 million individual income tax returns. Saver’s credits claimed on these returns averaged $215 for joint filers, $166 for heads of household and $128 for single filers.

The saver’s credit supplements other tax benefits available to people who set money aside for retirement. For example, most workers may deduct their contributions to a traditional IRA. Though Roth IRA contributions are not deductible, qualifying withdrawals, usually after retirement, are tax-free. Normally, contributions to 401(k) and similar workplace plans are not taxed until withdrawn.

Special rules

Other special rules that apply to the saver’s credit include the following:

• Eligible taxpayers must be at least 18 years of age.

• Anyone claimed as a dependent on someone else’s return cannot take the credit.

• A student cannot take the credit. A person enrolled as a full-time student during any part of 5 calendar months during the year is considered a student.

Certain retirement plan distributions reduce the contribution amount used to figure the credit. For 2013, this rule applies to distributions received after 2010 and before the due date, including extensions, of the 2013 return. Form 8880 and its instructions have details on making this computation.

Begun in 2002 as a temporary provision, the saver’s credit was made a permanent part of the tax code in legislation enacted in 2006. To help preserve the value of the credit, income limits are now adjusted annually to keep pace with inflation. 

The Agriculture Department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) says it's unleashing a new bevy of weapons to fight what it calls “the most pressing problem” it faces -- Salmonella in meat and poultry products, which it says is responsible for an estimated 1.3 million illnesses every year.

“Far too many Americans are sickened by Salmonella every year,” said Under Secretary for Food Safety Elisabeth Hagen. “The aggressive and comprehensive steps detailed in the Salmonella Action Plan will protect consumers by making meat and poultry products safer.”

The agency says its Salmonella Action Plan is a strategy “to best address the threat of Salmonella in meat and poultry products.”  The plan is designed to identify modernizing the outdated poultry slaughter inspection system as a top priority. By focusing inspectors’ duties solely on food safety, FSIS believes at least 5,000 illnesses can be prevented each year.  

Enhanced sampling and testing

Enhancing Salmonellasampling and testing programs is also part of this effort,  which is expected to ensure that these programs factor in the latest scientific information available and account for emerging trends in foodborne illness. Inspectors will also be given the tools necessary to pinpoint problems expeditiously.  

With more information about a plant’s performance history and with better methods for assessing in-plant conditions, inspectors will, the agency says “be better positioned to detect Salmonellaearlier, before it can cause an outbreak.”

In addition, the plan outlines several actions FSIS will take to drive innovations that will lower Salmonellacontamination rates, including establishing new performance standards; developing new strategies for inspection and throughout the full farm-to-table continuum; addressing all potential sources of Salmonella;and focusing the Agency’s education and outreach tools on Salmonella.

Building on the base

These efforts will build upon the work that USDA has done over the past several years. In 2011, USDA strengthened the performance standards for Salmonella in poultry with a goal of significantly reducing illnesses by 20,000 per year.  And through the SalmonellaInitiative Program, plants are now using processing techniques designed to directly reduce Salmonellain raw meat and poultry.  Thanks to these innovative technologies and tough policies, Salmonella rates in young chickens have dropped over 75 percent since 2006.

If you’re married with a mortgage loan and your spouse’s name isn’t on it you need to fix that, right away. McClatchyDC has a horrifying story explaining why: the story of Laura Biggs, a California widow whose house is about to be foreclosed upon because the mortgage loan is in her husband’s name, her husband has been dead for ten years and therefore the house is no longer his “primary” residence.

As McClatchy writer Kevin G. Hall pointed out, “Technically, though, it still is George “Kenny” Mitchell’s primary residence. He resides at the home in Rialto, east of Los Angeles near San Bernardino, in an urn. His cremated remains are part of an altar that Biggs, 65, keeps in memory of the trucking-company manager. Many mementos from their marriage surround his smiling photo.”

But, surely, that is a red herring; even if the late Mr. Mitchell currently “resides” at a cemetery, why would that justify foreclosing on his widow? Hall noted, “The problem of surviving spouses not being on loans is big enough that the Treasury Department, which devised a series of incentives for servicers to modify mortgages, has an entire section of a manual devoted to it.”

This is not to suggest that a new widow or widower must automatically fear foreclosure unless their name is on the mortgage loan; Biggs’ problem isn’t with the mortgage itself so much as an attempted modification. The loan originally came from now-defunct housing-bubble inflator Countrywide Mortgage, and over the years eventually fell into the hands of an investors’ group called Select Portfolio Servicing. A few years ago, after some health- and job-related problems, Biggs fell behind on her property taxes, which were then added to her mortgage balance.

But when Biggs tried to talk directly with the company, customer services representatives refused to deal with her, insisting on speaking with Mitchell, something that’s impossible. The offer to roll the taxes into the loan was abruptly withdrawn, she said.

“Because my name was not on the loan, they wouldn’t talk to me,” Biggs said. “It always had my name on the checks. My name has been on those checks ever since we got the property. It was never an issue until last year.”

Biggs tried to continue making monthly mortgage payments but the servicer refused to accept them. The mortgage became delinquent and later was placed in default, despite more than $100,000 in equity built up.

Despite having over $100,000 equity in the house, Biggs currently faces losing everything next week. She currently has a lawyer, George Bosch, working pro bono in hope of saving her house. Bosch told McClatchy: “If you have a surviving spouse, legal documents are not necessary. (Select Portfolio Servicing) didn’t realize they were in California.” Bosch, who did the paperwork to help Biggs seek a mortgage modification through the Home Affordable Modification Program, told McClatchy that Select Portfolio “came with a new loophole: The guy doesn’t reside here.”