Current Events in August 2014

Where food is concerned, basic self-preservation pretty much requires you to develop a Goldilocks-type of attitude. After all: too much [salt/fat/sugar/whatever else] is bad for your health, and too little [salt/fat/sugar/whatever else] is bad for you too; in order to be healthy, you must eat an amount that's Just Right.

There's a related problem surrounding the issue of food storage: on the one hand, you don't want to risk getting sick by keeping food around too long, after it's gone bad; on the other hand, you don't want to waste money by throwing away perfectly good food too soon, because you falsely believe it has gone bad.

And in recent months, even organizations whose primary focus is keeping bad and gone-bad food out of people's diets have started giving more notice to the issue of food waste caused by erroneous fear of bad food.

For example: earlier this month, when the International Association for Food Protection (IAFP) held its annual Food Safety Conference in Indianapolis, conference attendees including Emily Broad Lieb, director of Harvard's Food Law and Policy Clinic, agreed that America's food-dating system (more specifically, its lack of a standard one) might be part of the problem.

Oregon Live reported that the IAFP conference panel on food dating was standing-room only, and said that “The panelists, including leaders from industry, consumer advocacy groups, academia and government, agreed that the lack of a food dating system is a problem and not only for shoppers. Some manufacturers are confused about what to do.”

Lieb said “We talked to small companies [about dating] … They said: 'We don't know what we're doing.'”

A reporter for Food Safety News later interviewed Lieb about food waste and “expiration dates” on food packaging (though the interview is only available in video form; no text transcript). Lieb suggested that Americans might waste up to 50 percent of all food they buy (which in turn corresponds to a huge chunk of a typical American's grocery budget).

Best-by date

Check any packaged foods in your kitchen – canned goods, boxed goods, frozen foods – and most of them will have a “best-by” date printed on them. Many people believe that's the day the food suddenly goes bad, or ceases to be edible: if a can of beans is stamped “Best by Jul 14” then you must throw it away now.

Of course, as Food Safety News suggested in its headline, many people also call it the “expiration date,” and then presumably think, “Ah, so that's the date this food expires — or, worse, the date it'll make me expire, if I try to eat it.”

Except that's almost never true. On August 19, two safety inspectors with the U.S. Department of Agriculture published an article called “SAVE money by knowing when food is safe” on the USDA blog:

Stop! Don’t throw that food away! It might be safe to use, and that will save you money. According to USDA’s Economic Research Service, each American wastes more than 20 pounds of food every month. That’s about $115 billion worth of good food thrown away every year at the consumer level in the U.S. … While the USDA Meat and Poultry Hotline would never advise you to eat unsafe food, we don’t want you to throw away safe food and lose money.

A lot of perfectly good canned food is thrown away solely because of the date. “Dates on cans indicate peak quality as determined by the manufacturer. So don’t automatically pitch a can with an expired date,” said the USDA.

Different formula for formula

However, there is one very important exception to the “don't worry about canned-food dates” rule: infant formula. The USDA said “Unlike other foods, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requires that infant formula be dated. Do not feed a baby formula after the use-by date expires due to concern about adequate nutritive value.”

The USDA also discussed what (if anything) dates on other types of food mean: frozen food that never thaws will avoid going bad indefinitely, so you hardly need worry about the dates at all – although over time, frozen “foods do lose some quality: flavor, color, and texture.”

The USDA also offers safety guidelines for all sorts of shelf-stable (no freesing or refrigeration required) foods, plus safety guidelines for storing food in a refrigerator.

Does your cat seem like it just can't get enough food? Is it eating its own bowl of food and then going after perhaps your other cat's bowl of food and then jumping on the table for your food? It could be suffering from psychogenic abnormal feeding behavior.  

It's real and it's a problem. "Psychogenic" means the disorder has a root cause that is emotional or psychological rather than physical. Who says cats can't have mental illness?  Thankfully we aren't looking at sending it to rehab just yet.  Researchers at the Università degli Studi di Padova in Italy  published a case study in the Journal of Veterinary Behavior that concludes certain cats with ravenous appetites may have something called "psychogenic abnormal feeding behavior."

The researchers in Italy, a team of eight veterinarians, studied the case of Otto, an 8 month-old Siamese cat. Otto's owners reported the cat had an obsession with food. (Don't worry TLC has not turned Otto into a reality show - yet.)

Since possible triggers for his odd behavior included neurogenic and endocrine problems, Otto was given a complete medical workup. His laboratory findings were normal aside from high blood sugar.

Modification therapy

Basically, they got Otto into a modification therapy program. No, it wasn't group therapy they modified his behavioral responses to food. They had the owner implement the plan. 

Eating disorders in animals are rarely mentioned in scientific literature, but Otto's researchers theorize that stress experienced early in a pet's life may be linked to abnormal food-related behaviors. It all goes back to your mother even in cats! 

Much like humans if they are craving something and can't get enough it could be that they are lacking a specific nutrient and their bodies are literally craving it.

It took about 5 months of intense behavioral therapy dolled out by the owners and Otto was over his food obsession. 

If you suspect your cat has a food obsession that is significantly disruptive to daily life (your cat's and your own) a visit to the vet is in order just to make sure there are no underlying issues.

The smartphone “kill switch,” which California just passed into law, is one of those technological innovations whose benefit is so obvious, it's hard to imagine why anyone would be opposed to its implementation.

A kill switch allows smartphone owners to remotely disable or “kill” their phones, in the event that they are stolen. The ultimate intent, of course, is to discourage such thefts: thieves won't bother stealing phones which they know will be rendered useless.

Samsung developed a kill switch app in 2013, though smartphone companies initially resisted it; that December, New York's attorney general demanded to know why.

A cynic might speculate: “It's because the phone companies figure 'Hey, if you can't get your stolen phone back you'll have to buy a new one, which means more money for us. Whoopee!'” Or perhaps there's a useful valid consumer-protection rationale, only the phone companies forgot to issue the press release explaining it.

Congress dawdles

In February 2014, Congress proposed a bill that would require kill switch options on all smartphones sold in the U.S.; this proposal has not made it into law.

But California is unwilling to wait for a national bill. This week the state passed a law mandating kill-switch options on all smartphones manufactured and sold in the state after July 1, 2015.

California is the second state to pass such a kill-switch law; Minnesota passed a similar one in May.

Even if your phone does have a kill switch option (or you buy a phone that does), remember: the mere fact that your phone has this option won't help you unless you actually activate it. It's like any other anti-theft device: the best and strongest lock in the world won't protect your stuff if you forget to shut the door.

General Motors has been taking its lumps this year over its handling of ignition-switch defects but you wouldn't know it to read the latest consumer satisfaction survey, which finds Buick and Chevrolet outpacing other brands both foreign and domestic.

In the latest American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey, automobiles and light vehicles fell 1.2 0percent to 82 on a 100-point scale, as 16 of 21 measured nameplates exhibit declines in customer satisfaction.

The decline is pervasive across both domestics and imports, but the gap between the two actually narrows slightly as customer satisfaction with both Asian and European cars retreats more.

The only brands to improve are domestic: Chevrolet (+4%) and Buick (+1%). Nevertheless, imports retain a significant advantage in driver satisfaction: six of the top seven ACSI cars are imports.

Down but not out

Mercedes-Benz is down 2% but still leads the industry with an ACSI score of 86, followed by Subaru at 85 (-1%). Lexus slips 3% to tie Volkswagen (unchanged) at 84, while Toyota and Honda each fall 3% to 83. Buick also scores 83 and is the only domestic nameplate to exceed the industry average.

“There are two aspects of these findings that are somewhat unusual,” said Claes Fornell, ACSI Chairman and founder. “The first is that although the domestic car industry has deteriorated in customer satisfaction over the past couple of years, the gap to imports has narrowed due to a weakening of the latter’s customer satisfaction. The other notable finding is that several of the luxury brands do poorly. That didn’t use to be the case, and suggests that consumers now expect more for their money when they pay a premium price.”

Meanwhile, Chevrolet jumps to an ACSI score of 82, matching GMC (down 4%) and Kia (unchanged). Ford, Nissan, Hyundai and Chrysler are all tied at 81, just below industry average. Cadillac plummets 6% to an ACSI score of 80, neck and neck with Mazda and BMW (both down 2%).

At the bottom of the rankings are two domestic brands and two imports. Chrysler’s Jeep and Dodge both dip 1% to 79 and 78, respectively. Audi, which is included in the Index for the first time this year, posts a score of 79. In last place, Acura plunges 7% to 77.

Consumers will respond positively if a company changes its products to make them "greener," right? Not necessarily, a new study in the Journal of Consumer Research finds.

"When a company makes a product that is better for the environment, consumers are actually less likely to purchase it if the environmental benefit is perceived as intentional rather than the result of some other effort," write authors George E. Newman, Margarita Gorlin, and Ravi Dhar, all of Yale University. "If a company intentionally made a product better for the environment, consumers believe the product's quality must have suffered because the company diverted resources away from product quality."

In a series of studies, consumers learned about a company that manufactures household cleaning products and were told that the company either intended to make the product better for the environment or that the environmental gain was the result of another improvement.

Unintended wins

Consumers thought the products were higher in quality and were more likely to purchase the cleaning products when the improvement was unintended.

Even when the company's intentions were not disclosed, consumers thought the products suffered from a quality control problem, suggesting that consumers automatically perceive green products as being lower quality even when a company does not specify its intentions.

"Companies improving a basic product feature (making something more environmentally friendly or better tasting) should either position the improvement as unintended or emphasize that the primary goal is improving the quality of the product. On the other hand, companies looking to advertise their fair trade or sustainable production practices or their donations to charity can advertise those actions without worrying that it will affect perceptions of their products," the authors conclude.

The bullish attitude among the nation's consumers continues.

The Conference Board reports its Consumer Confidence Index rose more than 2 points in August -- to 92.4. While the Present Situation Index increased to 94.6 from 87.9, the Expectations Index edged lower -- to 90.9 from 91.9 in July.

“Consumer confidence increased for the fourth consecutive month as improving business conditions and robust job growth helped boost consumers’ spirits,” said Lynn Franco, director of economic indicators at The Conference Board. “Looking ahead, consumers were marginally less optimistic about the short-term outlook compared to July, primarily due to concerns about their earnings. Overall, however, they remain quite positive about the short-term outlooks for the economy and labor market.”

The consumers' view

Consumers’ appraisal of current conditions continued to improve through August. Those who believe business conditions are “good” edged up to 23.9% from 23.3 percent, while those who see business conditions are “bad” declined to 21.5% from 22.8%.

Consumers’ assessment of the job market was also more positive. Those saying jobs are “plentiful” increased to 18.2% from 15.6%, while those who think jobs are “hard to get” declined marginally to 30.6% from 30.9%.

Consumers were slightly less optimistic in August about the short-term outlook. The percentage of consumers expecting business conditions to improve over the next six months held steady at 20.4%, while those expecting business conditions to worsen fell to 10.2% from 12.1%.

However, they were somewhat mixed about the outlook for the labor market. Those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead fell to 17.0% from 18.7%, although those anticipating fewer jobs also declined to 15.8% from 16.6%.

Fewer consumers expect their incomes to grow -- 15.5% in August versus 17.7% in July, while those expecting a drop in their incomes rose inched higher to --11.9% from 11.1%.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey, based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen around what consumers buy and watch. The cutoff date for the preliminary results was August 14.

Prices of homes across the U.S. rose in June but are showing what the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices calls a “sustained slowdown in price increases.”

The National Index gained 6.2% in the 12 months ending June while the 10-City and 20-City Composites gained 8.1%. However, all three indices saw their rates slow considerably from last month, and every city saw its year-over-year return worsen.

The monthly gain for the National Index was 0.9% in June, while the 10- and 20-City Composites increased 1.0%. New York led the cities with a return of 1.6% and recorded its largest increase since June 2013. Chicago, Detroit and Las Vegas followed at +1.4%, with Las Vegas posting its largest monthly gain since last summer.

“Home price gains continue to ease as they have since last fall,” said David M. Blitzer, Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. “For the first time since February 2008, all cities showed lower annual rates than the previous month. Other housing indicators -- starts, existing home sales and builders’ sentiment -- are positive. Taken together, these point to a more normal housing sector.”

The gains are there, but...

All 20 cities saw their year-over-year rates weaken in June. For the second consecutive month, San Francisco saw its rate decelerate by almost three percentage points. Phoenix showed its smallest year-over-year gain (6.9%) since March 2012. Cleveland showed a marginal increase of 0.8% over the last 12 months while Las Vegas led with a gain of 15.2%.

All cities reported price increases for the third consecutive month; it would have been a fourth had New York not declined 0.4% in March. San Francisco posted its eighth consecutive price increase but showed its smallest gain (0.3%) since February.

Five cities -- Detroit, Las Vegas, New York, Phoenix and San Diego -- posted larger gains in June than in May. Dallas and Denver continue to set new peaks while Detroit remains the only city below its January 2000 value.

Twelve quarters of growth

Separately, The Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA) reports an 0.8% increase in U.S. house prices during the second quarter of this year. It's the twelfth consecutive quarterly price increase in the House Price Index (HPI).

The FHFA HPI is calculated using home sales price information from mortgages sold to, or guaranteed by, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. Year-over year prices rose were up 5.2% for the quarter. For a month-over-month comparison, FHFA’s seasonally adjusted index for June was up 0.4% from May, marking seven consecutive monthly increases.

“The extraordinary price appreciation observed over the last few spring seasons was not evident in the second quarter of this year. However, house price appreciation for the nation as a whole remained positive,” said FHFA Principal Economist Andrew Leventis. “FHFA’s data indicate that house price appreciation in the quarter was near or below the baseline rate of inflation in most states.”

Report highlights

• The seasonally adjusted, purchase-only HPI rose in 40 states during the second quarter of 2014, compared with from 42 states and the District of Columbia during the first quarter. The top annual appreciation was in: 1) Nevada, 2) California, 3) District of Columbia, 4) North Dakota, and 5) Arizona.
• Of the 9 census divisions, the Pacific division experienced the strongest increase in the second quarter, posting a 1.3% quarterly increase and a 9.8% increase since last year. House prices were weakest in the East South Central division, where prices fell 0.1% from the prior quarter.
• As measured with purchase-only indexes for the 100 most populated metropolitan areas in the U.S., second quarter price increases were greatest in the Winston-Salem, N.C., Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) where prices were up 4.6%. Prices were weakest in the Birmingham-Hoover, Ala., MSA, where they fell 4.9%. Quarterly appreciation was recorded in 74 of the 100 MSAs.
• The monthly seasonally adjusted, purchase-only index for the U.S. has increased for 7 consecutive months and 23 of the last 24 months (it fell in November 2013).
• The Pacific and Mountain census divisions -- the 2 divisions that saw the greatest price increases last quarter -- continued to decelerate.

More people are showing interest in retirement savings, and, according to Deloitte’s 13th Annual Defined Contribution Benchmarking Survey, a lot of it's due to the economic uptick over the past year.

The survey found that average account balances hit an all-time high of more than $95,000 in 2013, up nearly 10 grand from the year before, and that more employees are participating in defined contribution plans -- 6% (77% in 2013 versus 71% in 2012).

More faith in the economy

Among key findings the No. 1 reason for lack of employee participation in defined contribution plans is no longer due to an “uncertain economy/job market” (14% in 2013 compared with 24% in 2012), but instead a “lack of awareness and understanding” (30% in 2013 vs. 21% in 2012).

“Defined contribution plans, both 401(k) and 403(b), now represent the main source of future retirement income for a wide and growing majority of the workforce,” said Stacy Sandler, principal, Human Capital, Deloitte Consulting LLP. “It is imperative that employers and plan sponsors continue to encourage the growing trend in saving for retirement and focus on developing the right tools to educate and engage the workforce. Eighty one percent of respondents identified improving participation education as a top-of-mind issue for a majority of employees.”

Taking it mobile

This year’s survey, conducted with the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plans (IFEBP) and the International Society of Certified Employee Benefit Specialists (ISCEBS), revealed that transaction processing is supported on mobile devices for just over half (53%) of plans, and only one-in-five (20%) of plans utilize the latest communication methods (smartphones and tablets) to educate employees on retirement readiness.

However, employee satisfaction with hand-held connectivity tools continues to climb, jumping to 61% from 53% in 2012 and 28% 2011, underscoring the point that plan sponsors should continue to evaluate the effectiveness of supplementing traditional communications with going mobile.

Education a key

Plan sponsors are also aware of this reality and consistently rate the No. 1 barrier to a more effective plan as lack of employee understanding (30 %), an unchanged finding from year-to-year. When looking at the top areas of confusion, the study found that employees don’t know what funds to invest in (55%) followed by not knowing how much to save for retirement (35%). “When it comes to education, more is not necessarily better,” said Sandler. “Employers should consider pursuing a simplification strategy designed to deliver the right mix of educational resources to employees based on the demographics of their workforce.”

Making it attractive

According to the survey, companies are also showing renewed confidence in the economy and taking steps to make defined contribution plans more accessible and attractive to employees.

For example, immediate eligibility for matching contributions increased to 62% in 2013 -- up 6 percentage points from 2012. At the same time, 43% of employees cited taking advantage of the company match as the top reason for participation, unseating a personal desire to save for retirement (39%).

“While immediate eligibility for match and automatic enrollment continue to drive employee interest, there is still work to be done,” said Sandler. “Many employees perceive available education tools as too complex and intimidating. Retirement planning is unique for every individual, but many tools are created with a one-size-fits-all approach. Having the ability to recognize the gaps within the system is a solid first step in implementing effective remedies and reaching employees through their preferred channels.”

A new study reveals there has been widespread adoption in the U.S. of robot-assisted prostate removal surgery to treat prostate cancer in recent years.

At the same time, the study by BJU International found that while such surgeries are more expensive than traditional surgeries, their costs are decreasing over time.

Surgeons began using robotic technologies in operations to remove the prostate in 2001. To examine trends in the use of such robotic-assisted radical prostatectomy (RARP) procedures for prostate cancer patients, Steven Chang, MD, MS, of Harvard Medical School, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and Brigham and Women's Hospital, led a team that analyzed 489,369 men who underwent non-RARP (i.e., open or laparoscopic radical prostatectomy) or RARP in the U. S. from 2003 to 2010.

During the study period, RARP adoption (defined as performing more than 50% of annual radical prostatectomies with the robotic approach) increased from 0.7% to 42% of surgeons performing radical prostatectomies. Surgeons who performed at least 25 radical prostatectomies each year were more likely to adopt RARP.

Declining costs

Also, from 2005 to 2007, adoption was more common among surgeons at teaching hospitals and at intermediate and large-sized hospitals. After 2007, adoption was more common among surgeons at urban hospitals. RARP was more costly, disproportionally contributing to the 40% increase in annual prostate cancer surgery expenditures; however, RARP costs generally decreased and plateaued at slightly over $10,000 while non-RARP costs increased to nearly $9,000 by the end of the study.

"Our findings give insights on the adoption of not just robotic technology but future surgical innovations in terms of the general pattern of early diffusion, the potential impact on costs of new and competing treatments, and the alternations in practices patterns such as centralization of care to higher volume providers," said Dr. Chang.

Global Client Solutions, a leading debt-settlement payment processor, has agreed to pay $6 million in consumer relief plus a $1 million penalty for allegedly helping other companies to collect tens of millions of dollars in illegal upfront fees from consumers.

“Global Client Solutions made it possible for debt-settlement companies across the country to charge consumers illegal fees,” said CFPB Director Richard Cordray. “Consumers struggling to pay off a debt are among the most at risk and deserve better. We will continue to crack down on illegal debt-settlement firms and the companies that help these operations collect illegal fees from consumers.”

The Oklahoma-based company is one of the largest payment processors for the debt-settlement industry. Debt-settlement companies generally offer to help consumers reduce or eliminate their credit card or other debt by negotiating settlements with creditors.

In many cases, when consumers enroll in a debt-settlement program, the company instructs them to stop paying their debts and to instead make monthly payments to a payment processor account while the debts are negotiated. The CFPB has found that many consumers who use these services end up paying hundreds or even thousands in unlawful advance fees.

Consumers may also end up without their debts settled and fall even deeper in debt.

Illegal upfront fees

According to the CFPB’s complaint, since October 2010, Global Client Solutions processed tens of millions of dollars in illegal advance fees from tens of thousands of consumers. Global Client Solutions processed these unlawful fees on behalf of hundreds of debt relief companies across the country.

The proposed order bans Global Client Solutions from enabling other companies to collect illegal fees from consumers. The defendants will be subject to monitoring by the CFPB and will be required to make reports to the CFPB to ensure their compliance. The defendants will also pay over $6 million in consumer relief in addition to paying a civil money penalty of $1 million.

General Motors is recalling 106 model year 2014 Buick Regal, Cadillac XTS, Chevrolet Camaro and Chevrolet Impala vehicles.

Improperly torqued fasteners may cause the steering intermediate shaft and the steering gear and/or the lower control arm and the lower ball joint to separate. If any of the components separate, the vehicle may have a loss of steering, increasing the risk of a crash.

GM began to notify owners on June 27, 2014, and dealers will inspect the fasteners for correct torque, correcting them as necessary, free of charge.

Owners may contact GM customer service at 1-800-521-7300 (Buick), 1-800-458-8006 (Cadillac) or 1-800-222-1020 (Chevrolet). GM's number for this recall is 14378.

Some good news and some bad news about consumer income in America. Real median household income has fallen 3.1% since the end of the Great Recession in 2009, and is now 4.8% lower since the start of the recession in December 2007.

But in a hopeful note, real median household income has slowly started to rise from 2011 to 2014.

The data is contained on the latest Current Population Survey, compiled by Sentier Research. It comes on the heels of a report by the U.S. Conference of Mayors that graphically illustrates how Americans have taken a giant pay cut.

That study showed that the average annual wage of all the jobs lost between 2008 and 2009 – when most of the recession's job cuts occurred – was $61,637 a year.

The jobs added since the end of the recession, through the second quarter of this year, paid an average wage of $47,171 a year, a gap of 23%.

Similar picture

The Sentier study paints a similar picture. After adjusting for changes in consumer prices, median annual household income fell during the officially-defined recession from $56,604 in December 2007 to $55,589 in June 2009, a fall-off of 1.8%.

During the first two years of the economic recovery, while the unemployment rate and the time spent jobless remained high, median annual household income continued to fall, to $51,913 in June 2011, a decline of 6.6%.

But lately, the researchers find the trend has turned positive. Between June 2011 and June 2014, when the economy was in a state of slow recovery, real median household income rose 3.8%, from $51,913 to $53,891.

The numbers show the average consumer has lost a lot of economic ground since January 2000, at the end of the tech bubble but before the housing bubble. Median income is now nearly 6% lower than it was then.

“Real median household income is up by 3.8% overall since June 2011, but gains have not been shared equally by all groups, said Gordon Green, a spokesman for Sentier Research. “In terms of percentage increases in median household income over the past 3 years: families have fared better than nonfamilies, the employed have obviously fared better than the unemployed.”

Midwest households have recovered most

Blacks and whites have both fared better than Hispanics, and households in the Midwest region have fared better than households in the other three regions.”

The numbers also show that it has paid to own your own business in the last few years. The self-employed have fared better than private or government wage or salary workers.

Younger Americans have struggled more than their older counterparts to recover from the recession. Householders under age 25 have seen almost no income growth since the end of the recession in 2009. Those 25 to 54 have seen incomes decline, between 3.1% and 5.2%.

Retirees doing okay

But just as it has paid to work for yourself over the last 3 years, it has also paid to be at retirement age. Households with people 65 years old and over were the only groups examined in this study that had a statistically significant increase in median income between June 2009 and June 2014.

For households with a householder between 65 and 74 years old, median income increased by 6.2%, from $41,718 to $44,307. Among households with a householder 75 years old and over, median income increased by 5.4%.

Everybody knows that smoking is bad. Vaping? It's worse than not smoking at all but the American Heart Association says it may be worthwhile as a last-chance effort for smokers who have tried everything to quit smoking and failed.

In a policy statement released today, the AHA said physicians shouldn’t routinely discourage e-cigarette use as a last resort to stop smoking.

“If someone refuses to quit, we’re not opposed to them switching from conventional to e-cigarettes,” said Aruni Bhatnagar, lead writer of the policy statement from the Dallas-based nonprofit group and a professor of medicine at the University of Louisville in Kentucky.

“Don’t use them indefinitely. Set a quit date for quitting conventional, e-cigarettes and everything else. We don’t think that will be the long-term or useful way to look at it because e-cigarettes may continue and fuel nicotine addiction. Nicotine is not innocuous — it’s known to be harmful and have cardiovascular effects,” Bhatnagar said.

Studies show that nicotine causes a short-term increase in blood pressure, heart rate and blood flow from the heart. It also causes the arteries to narrow.

“We consider exposure to nicotine as part of smoking. We don’t want separate definitions for combustible and e-cigarettes,” he said.

"Re-normalize tobacco use"

Despite the concession that e-cigarettes may be worth trying when all else fails, the AHA made it clear it is steadfastly opposed to letting the devices sneak in under the wire. 

E-cigarettes are dangerous because they target young people, can keep people hooked on nicotine, and threaten to “re-normalize” tobacco use, the AHA said, insisting that e-cigs are tobacco products and should be subject to all laws that apply to these products.

The association also calls for strong new regulations to prevent access, sales and marketing of e-cigarettes to youth, and for more research into the product’s health impact.

“Over the last 50 years, 20 million Americans died because of tobacco. We are fiercely committed to preventing the tobacco industry from addicting another generation of smokers,” said Nancy Brown, CEO of the American Heart Association. “Recent studies raise concerns that e-cigarettes may be a gateway to traditional tobacco products for the nation’s youth, and could renormalize smoking in our society.”

Aereo was a good idea. It offered over-the-air TV -- you know, ABC, CBS, NBC -- over the Internet for as little as $8 a month, thus allowing customers to cut their cable and pocket huge savings.

Only problem is the Supreme Court ruled it was illegal because it was reselling and retransmitting broadcasters' signals without their permission. 

Now, along comes TiVo with a similar product that it thinks will pass legal muster. It's called TiVo Roamio OTA and it's a digital video recorder (DVR) that comes equipped with its own antenna, to pull in the over-the-air TV signals. Hook it up to your Internet connection and you can also watch and record Netflix, YouTube, Amazon, etc.

Rural dwellers, take note: The Roamio pulls in over-the-air signals. This means that if you live outside the range of local TV stations, it won't work for you. (Self-evident but always good to mention).

The Roamio costs $49.99 upfront plus $14.99 per month on a one-year contract. It can record up to 6 HD shows at once, has up to 3,000 hours of recording capacity and works with digital cable, Verizon FiOS and an HD antenna.

"Many top TV shows in America are available with a simple HD antenna," said TiVo CMO Ira Bahr. "TiVo Roamio OTA makes sure that they too can get a best in class DVR experience through an antenna, including our world renowned interface and industry defining recording capability at our most affordable price point ever."

Burger King is flirting with Tim Horton, the Canadian coffee-and-doughnuts giant. It's a lust-driven relationship, egged on by Burger King's hunger to reduce its American tax burden.

The two are talking about an "inversion," in which Burger King would basically acquire Tim Horton and become a Canadian company, thereby cutting the taxes it pays to Uncle Sam each year.

This has become rather controversial lately. President Obama recently called companies that abandon their U.S. headquarters "corporate deserters" and some large companies, most notably Walgreen, have backed off plans to sail away from their American roots.

Consumers don't like the idea either. In fact, some of the most vocal consumers on social media think that corporate tax rates aren't high enough and should be boosted.

A modest proposal

But many economists take a different view. Writing in the New York Times recently, Harvard economist N. Gregory Mankiw noted that the American corporate tax rate is much higher than other countries -- and, even more significantly, taxes all earnings of U.S.-based companies, even when the earnings come from overseas. No other advanced country does this.

Going a bit further, Mankiw proposes what at first sounds like a radical solution but is in fact one that has been talked about for decades as the answer to many of the tax inequities currently plaguing the U.S. economy: a consumption tax.

The first steps: repeal the corporate income tax entirely and scale back the personal tax rate.

Mankiw says it's important "to acknowledge that corporations are more like tax collectors than taxpayers. The burden of the corporate tax is ultimately borne by people — some combination of the companies’ employees, customers and shareholders."

A consumer tax is basically just what it sounds like -- a tax that's applied every time money changes hands. When you buy a car, order a grande triple latte or pay your divorce lawyer, the consumption tax kicks in. It's similar to the value-added tax (VAT) common throughout Western Europe.

Income is not taxed, so if you leave your money in the stock market, in corporate bonds or a savings account -- where it is available to support business expansion and jobs creation -- you pay no tax on the interest and dividends. 

Whenever this is proposed, critics say it would amount to a tax on the poor. The answer to this, says Mankiw, is "to use some revenue from the consumption tax to fund universal fixed rebates — sometimes called demogrants" for those whose income falls below a certain amount.

The chief benefit of such a system is, obviously, it encourages savings and investment. By eliminating the corporate tax, it's logical to assume it would also create jobs by encouraging U.S. corporations to keep their headquarters -- and the home-office executive staff -- in the United States, paying hefty salaries that would in turn produce lots of VAT revenue.

Mankiw admits, as have others who've floated similar proposals, that the likelihood of any such thing happening is close to zero. But it never hurts to float a good idea, in hopes that one may plant a seed that eventually germinates.

Or, as Mankiw conlcudes: "A better tax system is within reach, and ... only politics stands in the way." 

One of the top stressors in life is moving. Moving with a pet can just compound that stress, because it's an added expense. It's a jungle out there finding a dog house.

Apartments.com did the math in its 2014 Pet-Friendly Renting Trends Survey and revealed the high price pet owners pay to take in a furry companion. They surveyed about 3,000 people and found that close to 80% of renters were required to pay a deposit for a pet with half of those shelling out more than $200 per year.

That's provided renters were able to find a pet-friendly spot to call home in the first place. Most people said finding a place that will rent to you with pets is difficult. The easiest way to get in is with a goldfish -- no deposit. It's the quietest as well.

Cats seem to be the pet du jour among renters, next is the little dog and then medium to large dogs. No surprise the bigger the dog the harder the door shuts. The good news is most neighbors who don't own pets seem to like yours! The survey revealed that the neighbors like living in a pet-friendly building.

More expensive

Pe- friendly buildings are more expensive to live in. Why? Because the building isn't run by mom-and-pop landlords. These are institutional towers that tend to be stocked with amenities.

If you find a place you like but they don't accept pets talk to the landlord, introduce your pet then start begging just like your dog does for treats -- but don't drool. Gather proof that you are responsible. The more documentation that you can show that says you are a responsible pet owner the better.

Have these items available:

• A letter of reference from your current landlord or condominium association verifying that you are a responsible pet owner.
• Written proof that your adult dog has completed a training class, or that your puppy is enrolled in one.
• A letter from your veterinarian stating that you have been diligent in your pet’s medical care. Supply documentation that your pet has been spayed or neutered and vaccinated against rabies. (Sterilized pets are healthier, calmer, and far less likely to be a nuisance to neighbors.) Most veterinarians routinely fulfill such requests for their clients.

You understand the level of stress this creates. It's worth it though in the end if you can make it happen.

Once you get the"Good boy" OK, make sure you look online for a pet rider to add on to your rental agreement. Go over it together with your landlord. This gives you a leg up so to speak and will provide a legal framework for having your pet on the rental property.