Current Events in January 2015

Consumers seem to be felling their oats.

The Conference Board reports its Consumer Confidence Index, which had inched higher in December, rose sharply this month. The Index now stands at 102.9 -- up 9.8 from December. The Present Situation Index rose to 112.6 from 99.9, while the Expectations Index increased to 96.4 from 88.5.

With the big January increase, consumer confidence is now at its highest level since August 2007. “A more positive assessment of current business and labor market conditions contributed to the improvement in consumers’ view of the present situation,” said Lynn Franco, Director of Economic Indicators at The Conference Board. “Consumers also expressed a considerably higher degree of optimism regarding the short-term outlook for the economy and labor market, as well as their earnings.”

Through consumers' eyes

Consumers’ assessment of present-day conditions was considerably more favorable in January than last month. Those saying business conditions are “good” increased from 24.7% to 28.1%, while those who describe them as “bad” decreased from 18.9% to 16.8%. They were also much more positive in their assessment of the job market. Those who think jobs are “plentiful” rose from 17.2% to 20.5%. Those who said they're “hard to get” dipped to 25.7% from 27.3%.

Optimism about the short-term outlook was more positive. Consumers expecting business conditions to improve over the next 6 months rose from 17.8% to 18.4%, while those expecting them to worsen dropped from 9.9% to 7.7%.

The outlook for the labor market also showed improvement. Those anticipating more jobs in the months ahead increased from 14.6% to 16.7%, while those who see fewer jobs was down to 15.0% from 16.5%.

The proportion of consumers expecting their incomes to grow surged from 16.2% to 20.0%, while those who think they'll make less money rose from 10.2% to 11.3%.

The monthly Consumer Confidence Survey, based on a probability-design random sample, is conducted for The Conference Board by Nielsen, a provider of information and analytics around what consumers buy and watch.

The cutoff date for the preliminary results was January 15.

Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream is recalling all ice cream, gelato, custard and sorbet for all flavors and container sizes produced on or after January 1, 2014, through December 15, 2014.

The products may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The recalled products were distributed in Arizona, Idaho, California, Oregon and Washington, and may have been further distributed and sold in various retail outlets in Alaska, Colorado, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, North Dakota, Texas, Utah and Wyoming.

The products are labeled Snoqualmie Ice Cream, Snoqualmie Gelato, Snoqualmie Custard, Snoqualmie Sorbet or Emerald & Spruce Ice Cream or Top Pot Hand Forged Ice Cream and have a production date code located on the bottom of the container. The date codes included either end in “4”, e.g. XXX4 (pints and cups) or are listed by date: January 1, 2014 through December 15, 2014 (trays & tubs).

Customers who have purchased the affected product should dispose of it or return it to the place of purchase for a refund.

Consumers with questions or concern may call Snoqualmie Gourmet Ice Cream at 213-316-8323 Monday-Friday, 9:00am-4:00pm PST.

Probar of Salt Lake City, Utah, is recalling its Probar Base Frosted Peanut Butter Bars.

The product main contain milk, an allergen not listed on the label.

There have been 2 consumer complaints of allergic reactions to date.

This recall involves only Frosted Peanut Butter flavored Probar Base Bars in 2.46-oz. packages distributed to retail stores nationwide and online. Three lots are being recalled:

To locate the Lot Codes:

• Individual unit Lot Code and Expiration Date: printed on the outer seal of the wrapper
• 12-unit case Lot Code and Expiration Date: printed outside of the box

Consumers may call 1-800-921-2294, Monday – Friday from 8:30 a.m. -- 5 p.m. MT, or email returns@theprobar.com for more information and how to return the product for a full refund.

If you're an American citizen (or resident) looking for a single sentence to summarize your relationship with the government, here's one possibility: “The government gets to spy on you and know your whereabouts at all times, whereas you aren't even allowed to know where to find the nearest police officer nearest you.”

That's the simplest conclusion to reach after looking at two different and theoretically unrelated news stories from this week.

The Wall Street Journal reported yesterday that the Justice Department, primarily the Drug Enforcement Administration, “has been building a national database to track in real time the movement of vehicles around the U.S., a secret domestic intelligence-gathering program that scans and stores hundreds of millions of records about motorists, according to current and former officials and government documents.”

Not that this should surprise anyone who pays attention. Last May, when we reported how “license plate scanner errors vex innocent motorists,” we pointed out that if you live in modern America, there's a good chance that anytime you leave your house, your movements and whereabouts are being recorded in real-time and stored in a permanent record accessible to anybody willing to pay for database access (or skilled enough to hack into it).

Last May, California state senator Jerry Hill did a little experiment demonstrating just how easily a modern American's whereabouts can be tracked: he hired a private detective to track his wife's activities (presumably with her consent). The detective was easily able to get a fairly inclusive record of whatever she did – including a visit to a gym 100 miles away from home – without having to personally “track” her at all; he merely paid to access a database of license plate scans and used them to reconstruct her whereabouts.

DEA's is even bigger

And, as the Wall Street Journal reported this week, the DEA maintains an even larger database throughout the nation, a database frequently accessed by various state and local law-enforcement agencies seeking to monitor peoples' whereabouts:

The primary goal of the license-plate tracking program, run by the Drug Enforcement Administration, is to seize cars, cash and other assets to combat drug trafficking, according to one government document. … Officials have publicly said that they track vehicles near the border with Mexico to help fight drug cartels. What hasn’t been previously disclosed is that the DEA has spent years working to expand the database “throughout the United States,’’ according to one email reviewed by The Wall Street Journal.

The DEA collects its information with high-tech cameras placed in strategic locations to monitor public highways. In addition to license plate data, the cameras also photograph vehicles' occupants clearly enough to confirm their identities. The cameras, and the databases of information they collect, let authorized government agents (in addition to the unauthorized hackers who menace any computer data) track people's whereabouts in realtime, in addition to compiling a historical record of people's movements.

Despite all the information presented in the Journal's story, much about the DEA's national surveillance program remains unknown:

The effort began in border states like Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico and Texas, but the goal has always been expansion, according to current and former federal officials and documents. Officials wouldn’t say how many other states are now feeding data into the system, citing concerns that disclosing such information could help criminals avoid detection.

The federal program hasn’t always been embraced by states. At a 2012 hearing, Utah lawmakers balked when DEA officials sought to have license-plate readers in the state feed into the database—one of the few times the agency has provided even limited facts about the program ….

To reiterate: the federal government has a large and growing nationwide system of cameras set up to monitor and record the locations of literally everybody in America (or, at least, everybody on an American highway).

The federal government won't let citizens or even state-level elected officials know any specifics about how far-reaching this spy-camera program is, and of course justifies this secrecy by saying that if Americans are allowed to know just how much the DEA and other branches of government spy on us, this could “help criminals.”

Police sightings

Unsurprisingly, that's pretty much the same argument the NSA [National Sheriffs Association] used last week, to explain why Google ought to disable the police-tracking feature of its popular “Waze” traffic app. Waze is a crowdsourced app that lets users post realtime updates about local road or traffic conditions. It also allows users to report police sightings on public roadways – and, as the Associated Press reported yesterday, the police don't like that idea at all.

Although Waze does show police presence, it offers nothing more specific than a police-shaped icon indicating that police are in an area. But it won't say why — are police in a given location manning a speedtrap? Putting up a roadblock or checkpoint? Taking a lunch break? You won't know; you'll only know that police are there.

But for modern cops, even that is more information than American citizens can be trusted with. Last December, for example, Los Angeles' police chief wrote a letter to Google's CEO complaining that Waze could be “misused by those with criminal intent to endanger police officers and the community.”

The AP noted that at the National Sheriffs Association meeting last week, Sheriff Mike Brown of Bedford County, Virginia, suggested that “The police community needs to coordinate an effort to have the owner, Google, act like the responsible corporate citizen they have always been and remove this feature from the application even before any litigation or statutory action.”

(Translation: Google should definitely NOT take this as a threat or anything, nobody's threatening any lawsuit or legal actions, we're just urging Google to be responsible and do what we want so we won't have to bother with lawsuits or legal actions, capisce?)

Google declined comment on the matter, but a Waze spokesperson said that Waze works with, and shares information with, police departments around the world, and that “These relationships keep citizens safe, promote faster emergency response and help alleviate traffic congestion.”

While the overall housing market has muddled along over the last 12 months, one segment has been booming – housing developments for people age 55 and over, often referred to as the “55+” market.

It should come as no surprise that housing for this demographic is ascending. After all, Baby Boomers are by and large, the most affluent segment of the population. They have the money to buy new homes.

They are also at a point in their lives when they are downsizing. Not ready for a retirement home, they are ready for less responsibility and less house. And home builders say they are gravitating toward housing developments that are only open to residents 55 and over.

Healthy segment

"The 55+ housing market has been one of the healthiest segments of the overall housing market, and is likely to remain that way over the next several years," said Paul Emrath, National Association of Home Builders (NAHB) vice president of survey and housing policy research. "When you look at age-restricted single-family starts, there were as many in the first half of 2014 as in all of 2012. And going forward, the steady rise in the 55 and over population will signal an increased need for housing to accommodate that group."

While new home starts have been up and down over the last several years, Emrath says a survey of members that measures builder and developer confidence for that market has regularly posted year-over-year gains.

Proof is in the numbers

The proof of any trend lies in the numbers, not just sentiment. Here, the evidence shows an increase in both people interested in 55+ housing and those actually making the move to purchase a new home.

"We are seeing more consumers actually make the decision to buy a new home as they are able to sell their current home at an acceptable price," said Steve Bomberger, chairman of NAHB's 50+ Housing Council. "We are busier now than ever before. And I don't think it's going to slow down anytime soon."

What's the draw for an age-restricted community? For one, there are no children in the neighborhood. For some, having no kids around is a big plus.

SeniorHomes.com, an online seniors housing resource, says many retirees just want a break from the responsibility of maintaining a home, and to enjoy community amenities or to socialize with people their own age.

Some 55+ communities resemble a resort, offering laundry and kitchen services, along with a 24-hour concierge service. Most communities have recreational facilities like swimming pools and putting greens, as well as activities like art classes and fitness programs.

"Consumers in this market are looking for a home that accommodates their specific needs, and 55+ builders and developers are able to create homes and communities that address these needs," said Timothy McCarthy, vice chairman of NAHB's 50+ Housing Council. "As the economy continues to improve, so does our overall business. Builders in this market have the opportunity to have tremendous success since the population we are serving is so vast."

Costly

But consumers considering a 55+ home need to shop carefully because costs can vary widely. Some developments are non-profit, some are for-profit. In addition to a one-time initial buy-in fee for purchasing a residential unit, 55+ communities typically charge between $2,000 and $5,000 a month for maintenance, upkeep and services, although some facilities may cost less.

Measuring the pros and cons, SeniorHomes.com says residents can enjoy more perks and find assistance in maintaining an active, normal lifestyle as they age in these age-restricted communities.

On the downside, some seniors might feel a sense of loss in the abrupt change from the residential neighborhood where they raised their children. And while the idea of being around only people in your age group might sound attractive, it could be much less so in reality.

Finally, for those who are used to living in single-family homes, apartment-style facilities may prove uncomfortable.

A year ago Carfax, a company selling automotive data to consumers, reported there were more than 3 million cars on the road in 2013 with an open – or unrepaired – safety recall. This year, it counts more than 10 times that number.

Citing new research, Carfax says more than 46 million cars nationwide have at least one safety recall that’s never been fixed. At least 5 million of those vehicles were bought and sold by potentially unsuspecting consumers in 2014, the company says.

Making matters worse is the type of vehicle most likely to have an open recall. Carfax says they are overweighted among so-called family-oriented vehicles – specifically minivans and SUVs. One in 3 minivans and 1 in 5 SUVs have an unfixed recall, according to Carfax.

Cavalier response

“America’s cavalier response to manufacturer safety recalls is putting lives at risk,” said Larry Gamache, communications director at Carfax. “Every morning millions of people drive to work, school and other places in a potential ticking time bomb. Fires, crashes and serious injury are just a few consequences of letting recalls go unfixed. The minor inconvenience that comes from having a recall fixed pales in comparison to what can happen if you don’t.”

When a car is recalled for any reason, the recall notice goes out to the owner of record. But if the owner has sold the vehicle or chooses to ignore the notice, the repair is not made. The vehicle might be sold more than once with the eventual owner completely unaware that the car or truck has a safety defect.

According to Carfax, California, Texas, Florida, New York and Pennsylvania lead the nation in unrepaired recalls. However, the percentage of these vehicles is highest in West Virginia, Michigan, Mississippi, Wyoming and New Jersey.

Surge in recalls

The report is especially troubling since last year saw a huge surge in safety recalls, especially from one manufacturer – General Motors (GM). In November we reported that an estimated 1 million recalled GM cars had still not been repaired.

Driving an unrepaired vehicle can be very dangerous, depending upon the safety issue. In the case of last year's Takata airbag recall, the issue is the fact that exploding airbags could send shrapnel into the body of the driver. The issue has been linked to at least 5 deaths and hundreds of injuries.

A study by the Highway Loss Data Institute (HLDI) underlines the importance of having recall repairs made, no matter what defect is involved. It focused on non-crash fires, finding claims went up even after a vehicle had been recalled.

"As one would hope, recalls mitigate the effect of fire-related defects," said HLDI Vice President Matt Moore. "However, even after recalls are issued, these vehicles continue to have higher claim rates. This may be a result of people not following up after receiving a recall notice."

If you are driving an older vehicle – especially one that you purchased used – there is a very simple way to find out if your car has an open recall.

There is a national database of open automotive recalls that can be searched by brand. By entering your car's vehicle identification number (VIN) you can learn if your car has an unrepaired issue. You can access the database here.

Airlines are quick to raise fares and slap on fuel surcharges when fuel costs are high. But they're not so quick to lower fares or eliminate those surcharges when prices tumble. This is starting to irk passengers.

“Because of the big airline mergers, competition has been squeezed out of the system,” said Charlie Leocha, chairman of Travelers United. “With only three network carriers, airlines now have the luxury of ignoring the market and maintaining high prices and low capacity.”

Right on cue, American Airlines reported today that its operating expenses fell 4.1% in the latest quarter to $9.3 billion, primarily because of a 17.3% drop in fuel expense.

It's time for airlines to fasten their seat belts and let fares begin their descent, said Paul Hudson, president of FlyersRights.com, a 50,000-member airline passenger organization.

“We have seen six months of steadily dropping gas costs,” Hudson said in a letter to 12 major U.S. airlines. “By any measure, the money saved by the airlines should be reflected in lower airfares.”

Clear link

Airlines are the ones who clearly established the link between fuel and airfares, Hudson said. For the past half-decade while fuel costs were rising, airlines were increasing airfares and regularly proclaiming the dire need for fuel surcharges, baggage fees and other ancillary fees.

“Our organizations are making it clear to Congress and the Department of Justice that the market is not working,” says Hudson. “Consumers should be hearing airlines crow about how airfares are going down and the number of flights increasing thanks to the low cost of oil. Instead we hear deafening silence.”

“Common sense says prices should drop when the biggest cost factor in flying nosedives,” adds Leocha. “This isn’t rocket science. Though economists can make lots of excuses, if there were more competition, consumers would be seeing lower costs to fly.”

“This is a clear consequence of near monopoly in the airline industry,” explains Hudson. “If the airline CEOs don’t take action shortly, Congress, the Department of Transportation and/or the Department of Justice should.”

Home prices across the country continued to rise on a year-over-year basis in November although at a slower rate, while month-over-month, there was a decline in values.

According to the S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, both the 10-City Composite gained 4.2% -- down 0.2% from October and the 20-City Composite was up 4.3%%, versus a 4.5% advance the month before. The National Home Price Index -- which covers all 9 U.S. census divisions -- posted a 4.7% annual gain in November 2014 compared with 4.6% in October 2014.

Miami and San Francisco continue to lead all cities, posting gains of 8.6% and 8.9% over the last 12 months. Nine cities -- including Tampa, Atlanta, Charlotte and Portland -- saw annual growth rates climb more than other cities in November; 12-month growth rates for Detroit and Miami dropped the most among all 20 cities.

Month-over-month

Both the National and Composite Indices were down marginally in November. The 10 and 20-City Composites reported declines of -0.3% and -0.2% respectively, while the National Index posted a decline of -0.1% for the month.

Tampa led all cities in November with an increase of 0.8%. Chicago and Detroit offset those gains by reporting decreases of -1.1% and -0.9% respectively.

"With the spring home buying season, and spring training, still a month or two away, the housing recovery is barely on first base," says David Blitzer, Managing Director and Chairman of the Index Committee at S&P Dow Jones Indices. "Prospects for a home run in 2015 aren't good. Strong price gains are limited to California, Florida, the Pacific Northwest, Denver, and Dallas. Most of the rest of the country is lagging the national index gains. Moreover, these price patterns have been in place since last spring. Existing home sales were lower in 2014 than 2013, confirming these trends.”

Sales of new single-family homes were higher both in December and for the year as a whole.

Figures released jointly by the U.S. Census Bureau and the Department of Housing and Urban Development show house sold at an annual rate of 481,000 last month -- up 11.6% from the revised November. The previous month's total was revised lower to show an increase of 431,000 instead of the 438,00 reported initially.

The December sales rate was also 8.8% above the rate of 442,000 for December 2013.

For all of 2014, an estimated 435,000 new homes were sold -- 1.2% above the 2013 figure of 429,000.

Prices and inventory

The median price of new houses sold last month was $298,100, up $22,600 from the previous year and a gain of $6,500 from November. The median is the point at which half the prices are higher and half are lower.

The average sales price was $377,800, a year-over-year gain of $56,600 and up $33,200 from a month earlier.

The seasonally adjusted estimate of new houses for sale at the end of December was 219,000, which represents a supply of 5.5 months at the current sales rate.

The complete new home sales report is available on the Commerce Department website.

Spending on Valentine’s Day gifts is expected to rise this year.

According to the National Retail Federation’s ( NRF)Valentine’s Day Consumer Spending Survey conducted by Prosper Insights and Analytics, the average person celebrating Valentine’s Day will spend $142.31 on candy, flowers, apparel and more, compared with $133.91 last year. Total spending is expected to reach $18.9 billion -- a survey high.

“It’s encouraging to see consumers show interest in spending on gifts and Valentine’s Day-related merchandise -- a good sign for consumer sentiment as we head into 2015,” said NRF president and CEO Matthew Shay. “Hoping to draw in eager shoppers, retailers will offer unique promotions on gifts, meal options at restaurants and even experiences.”

Candy, Jewelry and flowers

While most (53.2%) plan to buy candy for the sweet holiday, spending a total of $1.7 billion, one in five (21.1%) plans to buy jewelry for a total of $4.8 billion -- the highest amount seen since NRF began tracking spending on Valentine’s gifts in 2010.

Additionally 37.8% will buy flowers, spending a total of $2.1 billion, and more than one-third (35.1%) will spend on plans for a special night out, including movies and restaurants, totaling $3.6 billion. Celebrants will also spend nearly $2 billion on clothing and $1.5 billion on the gift that keeps on giving: gift cards.

Spending to increase

The survey found nine in 10 (91%) plan to treat their significant others/spouses to something special for the consumer holiday, with plans to spend an average of $87.94 on them -- versus $78.09 last year. Additionally, 58.7% will spend an average of $26.26 on other family members and $6.30 on children’s classmates/teachers.

A record one in five (21.2%) say they will include their pets in their Valentine’s Day plans, looking to spend a mere $5.28 on average -- which equates to a whopping $703 million on pint-sized gifts of all varieties.

Eyes on the wallet

Discount (35.2%) and department stores (36.5%) will be among the most visited locations for those looking for the perfect Valentine’s Day gift, as will specialty stores (19.4%) and florists (18.7%). One-quarter (25.1%) say they will shop online and 13.3 percent will shop at a local or small business to find something unique for their loved one.

It seems women are in for the biggest treat this Valentine’s Day. Men will spend nearly double what women plan to spend ($190.53 vs. $96.58 on average, respectively.) Additionally, adults 25-to-34 will outspend other age groups at an average of $213.04; 35-to-44 year olds will spend an average of $176.21 and 18-to-24 year olds will spend an average of $168.95.

Oscar’s Hickory House of Warrensburg, N.Y., is recalling approximately 376 pounds of sausage products.

The products contain soy, milk, wheat, and sulfites, allergens not declared on the product label.

There are no reports of adverse reactions due to consumption of these products.

The following products are being recalled:

• .75-lb Cryovac 4 link packages of Oscar’s Smoke House “Rabbit Sausage with White Wine (veal and pork added).”
• .75-lb Cryovac 4 link packages of Oscar’s Smoke House “Elk Sausage with Apples, Pears, and Port Wine (beef and pork added).”
• .75-lb Cryovac 4 link packages of Oscar’s Smoke House “Hickory Smoked Duck Sausage with Apple Jack Brandy (pork and beef added).”

The recalled products were produced on various dates from March 1, 2014, through January 26, 2015, bear the establishment number “4257” inside the USDA mark of inspection and do not have the sell by date printed on the product label.

They were sold at Oscar’s Hickory House, in Warrensburg, N.Y.

Consumers with questions may contact Jerold Quintal at Oscar’s Hickory House at 1-518-623-3431.

Volkswagen Group of America is recalling 26,008 model year 2011-2012 Audi S4, S5, Q7, 2012 Audi A6, Volkswagen Touareg Hybrid, and 2012-2013 Audi A7 vehicles.

The vehicles' fuel injection may leak, and the presence of an ignition source increases the risk of a fire.

Volkswagen will notify owners, and dealers will replace the fuel rails and corresponding seals, free of charge. The recall is expected to begin March 10, 2015.

Owners may contact Audi customer service at 1-800-822-2834 or Volkswagen customer service at 1-800-893-5298.

Volkswagen’s numbers for this recall are 24AP for Audi customers and 24BK for Volkswagen customers.

Lower-income consumers are being unfairly gouged for car insurance, a study by the Consumer Federation of America (CFA) finds, contributing to the high rate of uninsured drivers and restricting economic opportunities.

The study found that annual auto insurance premiums are especially high for the estimated 8 million low- and moderate-income drivers who finance their car purchases. These drivers must purchase the comprehensive and collision coverage required by auto lenders in addition to the liability coverage required by states.

In the 15 cities CFA surveyed, annual premium quotes by the nation's five largest auto insurers -- State Farm, GEICO, Allstate, Progressive, and Farmers -- were almost always more than $900 and were usually more than $1,500.

In a related national opinion survey undertaken by ORC International for CFA, nearly four-fifths of respondents (79%) said that a fair annual cost for this auto insurance coverage was less than $750. One-half (50%) said that a fair annual cost was less than $500.

“High auto insurance premiums represent a huge barrier to car ownership, and economic opportunity, for millions of lower-income Americans,” said Stephen Brobeck, CFA’s Executive Director. “Researchers agree that they and other Americans, even those in large cities, gain access to better jobs and other opportunities through access to a car,” he added.

The report faulted state governments for allowing major auto insurers to charge higher premiums based on income and other factors not directly related to safety.

“State governments, which require drivers to purchase auto insurance, have a special responsibility to ensure that this insurance is affordable in an auto-dependent society,” said J. Robert Hunter, CFA’s Director of Insurance and former Texas Insurance Commissioner. “These governments should create low-income programs that pay for themselves, such as California’s, and also end well-documented price discrimination against lower-income drivers.”

For more than a decade, California has made available liability coverage to good lower-income drivers for $226 to $338 a year, depending on county of residence. By law, this program is required to charge premiums that cover claims paid, so is not subsidized by taxpayers or other drivers.

GEICO the lowest

GEICO tended to charge the least (e.g., 6 of the 8 quotes under $900) while Farmers tended to charge the most (e.g., 12 of the 16 quotes over $3,000).
Within individual markets, huge price ranges typically exceeded 100 percent.

“Any economist will tell you that price ranges greater than 100% for essentially the same product reveal lack of true price competition,” noted CFA’s Brobeck.

“As well as denying economic opportunity, these high premiums pressure many lower-income drivers to break the law by driving without insurance,” Hunter said. “We’ve estimated that one-quarter to one-third of these drivers have let their policies lapse or never purchased them in the first place, because they confront the Hobson’s choice of paying for insurance or more basic necessities like food, rent, or electricity.”

With tax-filing season in high gear, the IRS has issued its annual warnings against thieving scammers who pretend to be IRS agents so they can prey on taxpayers, either by directly stealing money, or indirectly via identity theft.

Every January, the IRS releases a list of the most common tax-related scams from the previous year. On Friday, the agency kicked off the weekend with an announcement reminding everyone that “Phishing remains on the IRS 'Dirty Dozen' list of tax scams” for this year's tax-filing season.

Of course, phishing scams aren't remotely limited to the IRS; pretty much every genuine company or government agency in existence has scammers operating in its name somewhere. But there's enough phishers posing as federal tax agents that the IRS website has an entire page dedicated exclusively to letting taxpayers “Report phishing and online scams.”

The IRS urges all taxpayers to:

Report all unsolicited email claiming to be from the IRS or an IRS-related function to phishing@irs.gov. Recent scams have used the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System (EFTPS) to attract potential victims.  Also, if you've experienced any monetary losses due to an IRS-related incident, please report it to the Treasury Inspector General Administration (TIGTA) and file a complaint with the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) through their Complaint Assistant to make the information available to investigators.

Fake emails from the IRS usually fall into one of two categories: those claiming you must pay taxes, and those claiming you're owed a refund. The “false refund” messages are often attempts to steal your personal information so the scammers can commit identity theft; the email might, for example, request your Social Security and bank account numbers, ostensibly to deposit a tax refund into your account.

The message might also be loaded with malware, and the scammers want you to click on links or download attachments in order to install that malware onto your computer. (Of course, you should never download attachments or click on links in any unsolicited emails, no matter who they're supposedly from.)

Back taxes

On the other hand, you might instead receive emails — or even phone calls — claiming that you owe back taxes to the IRS. In such instances, the caller or email writer will not only demand payment from you, but will threaten you with arrest and imprisonment if you don't pay immediately.

You can be confident that such a message is not actually from an IRS agent. As the IRS' “Report Phishing” page says (with the italicized bold-print word lifted form the original): “The IRS doesn't initiate contact with taxpayers by email, text messages or social media channels to request personal or financial information. This includes requests for PIN numbers, passwords or similar access information for credit cards, banks or other financial accounts.”

The threat of immediate consequences is another tipoff that the message isn't from the IRS: yes, the agency really does go after delinquent taxpayers, and even puts people in prison for non-payment. But the IRS, when going after tax scofflaws, does not demand payment over the phone or via email. Nor would a legitimate IRS agent demand payment in cash, via a pre-paid money card or some other untraceable source.

And, while the IRS does impose deadlines on people, and has the right to say “Pay up by a certain time or face consequences,” that time is always at least several days in the future. You'll never hear an IRS agent tell you “Pay up right now, or you'll be arrested right now.”

For the most part, IRS agents don't threaten people with arrest at all — because, quite frankly, they don't need to. Unlike scammers, real IRS agents know they have the law on their side. Scammers, by contrast, make scary-sounding threats in hopes of pressing your panic button long enough for your fear to override your good sense: “Act now pay now right now, don't calm down and especially don't stop to think how very unlikely it is that you could be a tax scofflaw bad enough that you're headed for prison right now, yet until five seconds ago you had no idea.”

What to do

If you get a phone call or any other communication from someone claiming to be from the IRS, and you don't want to hang up for fear of possibly offending a genuine IRS agent, the IRS says that you should “Record the employee's name, badge number, call back number and caller ID if available.” (If the so-called IRS agent refuses to give you this information, that alone guarantees you're talking to a scammer.)

Once you have this information, the agency says, you should “[c]all 1-800-366-4484 to determine if the caller is an IRS employee with a legitimate need to contact you.” If it was, then call the agent back. Otherwise, the IRS requests that you report the scam attempt by sending an email to phishing@irs.gov, with “IRS Phone Scam” as the subject. You might also consider calling your local police to let them know about the phone-scam attempt in their jurisdiction.

If you have a pit bull or other dog that’s generally considered dangerous, you'd better start cutting back on dog treats or maybe get a smaller house and a cheaper car, because you are going to have a hefty insurance premium -- if you can even find a policy.

Owners of dogs classified as dangerous by Ormond Beach, Fla., for example, will now have to get $100,000 liability insurance coverage to keep their pets after an ordinance passed by the City Commission. Other locales are looking at similar legislation.

How does a dog get a "dangerous" label? It takes just one time, that's it. If your dog attacks a human once or it attacks another animal more than twice in Ormond Beach you will be officially living with a dangerous dog.

Before the vote last week, the dog owner just had to carry a policy for $1,000 but the city fathers felt the higher policy limit was justified because of the cost of treating dog-bite injuries. Research shows that the average medical bill for someone bitten by a dog is around $40,000.

If you don't have the $100,000 insurance, you have to leave the area or surrender your dog.

Homeowners policy not enough

While homeowners and renters insurance usually cover dog bites, they often don't provide enough coverage to handle major injuries. Also, insurance companies are increasingly excluding breeds considered dangerous.

One answer is to buy an "umbrella" policy, which basically covers everything not covered by other policies. But again, insurance companies are excluding dangerous breeds from those policies as well.

Pit bulls and rottweilers are generally considered the most dangerous breeds, according to DogsBite.org.

Laws, of course, vary by state and from one city or two to another within each state but the trend is clearly towards harsh penalties and escalating liability for vicious dogs and their owners.

Maryland recently backed away from laws aimed specifically at pit bulls when then-Gov. Martin O'Malley signed a measure repealing what some called "canine racism." But a few months later, in Frederick, Md., a pit bull attacked and killed its 87-year-old owner, Eugene Smith, as he took down his Christmas tree.

Backers of the anti-canine racism measure disclaimed any responsibility for the incident.

Legal niceties aside, what it comes down to is that owning a dog considered to be dangerous represents a legal liability that is greater than most consumers can afford.

What they don't know won't hurt them. Is that an OK motto for a relationship? About 20% of Americans seem to think it works for them. About 1 in 5 say they have spent $500 or more without telling their partner.

Then there are the independents who make up 6% and maintain a hidden checking or savings account and use secret credit cards. Of course there are couples who are open about separate accounts, and they have the freedom to spend as they see fit.

Creditcards.com did a national, random telephone survey of 843 American adults who said they were currently living with a spouse or partner or significant other. If you extend the results to the general population that would mean about 7 million Americans are keeping financial secrets and committing financial infidelity.

Paula Levy, a marriage and family therapist in Connecticut who just happens to be a certified public accountant as well, says there is nothing out of the ordinary about couples keeping some financial secrets. “In most cases, the secret is mostly to avoid conflict and to make sure they get what they want," said Levy.

Lack of trust

The problem arises when one of the parties finds out that a secret has been kept from them. That creates a lack of trust and can undermine a relationship.

"Hidden accounts are way more common than people think," said Paula Langguth Ryan, a financial advisor who helps consumers work out debt problems.

Such problems often arise when one spouse is afraid to tell the other how much debt they have run up. The truth usually emerges after something hits the fan such as a car in the driveway being repossessed or a lien on the house pops up seemingly from nowhere.

Who do you think is more likely to be hiding a credit card or checking account? It seems that men hold the wallet closest to their pants pocket; 8% of men admitted to having had secret accounts, compared with 5% of women. Men were almost twice as likely as women to say they spent $500 or more without telling their partners: 26% of men, versus just 14% of women.

On the other hand, men don't seem to be bothered if their spouse or significant other spends large amounts of cash without telling them. Thirty-one percent of men and 18% of women say they would have no problem with their partner spending $500 or more without letting them know.

How do you know?

So how do you know if someone is committing financial infidelity? There are ways to spot it, according to Terry Savage, a financial columnist and co-author of "The New Love Deal: Everything You Must Know before Marrying, Moving in or Moving on."

"The first warning of financial infidelity often comes when something doesn't feel quite right," she said. "Unexpected debits for cash from a debit card, unusual credit purchases, or accounts that don't 'balance' will lead you right to the money leak." Look at bank statements. You should have access to those if you have a joint account.

Like anything in a relationship you need to talk about it. The best time is probably not when you are out to dinner or in a movie. Pick a time where you both can take a look at your credit report and go through it and figure a way to work together to solve the problem. Most money issues aren't about money -- they're about power.

People have money personalities -- you are either a saver or a spender. These personalities were years in the making. If you are spending more than you have -- or if your spouse is -- and you can't seem to work it out, get a financial counselor who can help set up a plan that will work for both of you.

J.J. Fuds of Valparaiso, Ind., is recalling a select lot and product of J.J. Fuds Chicken Tender Chunks pet food.

The product may be contaminated with Listeria monocytogenes.

The company has received no reports of human or animal illness as a result of these products.

The following product is being recalled:

• 5-lb. bags of J. J. Fuds Premium Natural Blends, Chicken Tender Chunks with Product UPC Number: 654592-345935; Manufacture/Lot Code Date: 5/5/14

The recalled product was distributed to wholesale and retail customers in Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Indiana and Illinois. It can be identified by the batch ID code (manufactured date) and UPC code printed on the back of the individual plastic bag or on the master case label.

It is a frozen raw poultry product (see Safe Handling Instructions on package) and has a shelf life of one year if kept frozen.

Pet owners who have the affected product should return it to the retailer for a refund and proper disposal.

Consumers with questions regarding this recall, may call 888-435-5873 Monday-Friday 8AM-4PM, CST.