“Today I made it official,” said Dempsey, “but I’ve been on this road, literally, for almost a year now. I’ve traveled hundreds of miles at a stretch, sometimes to meet with groups as small as three or four, so I could reach out to the citizens of this district – young and old, men and women; employed and unemployed, in retirement and in training – to listen to their concerns and hear them talk about their hopes and dreams. This has given me a first-hand, first-person understanding of what the citizens of this district are going through, and what they expect from their Representative in Washington.”
A graduate of South Tahoe High School, Dempsey moved to Carson Valley in 1996. After leaving the Marine Corps, he studied at Western Nevada College and built a career as a grocery store manager. Now the pride and joy of his life is his 6 year old son, Ender.
“After all the dark times Nevada families have gone through in recent years,” said Dempsey, “I am ready to move mountains, if necessary, to build a brighter future for my son’s generation. Sadly, all we’ve seen in Washington of late has been obstructionism and partisan politics. I’m determined to change that.”
Dempsey believes the electorate knows exactly what it wants. “Regardless of party affiliation,” said Dempsey, “the voters I’ve talked to want all the same things I do: more jobs, better education, respect and fairness for all – including immigrants – and a health care system that will be affordable for the taxpayers in decades to come.”
For more information, find “Dempsey for Congress” on Facebook or go to his website at dempsey4congress.com.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration today proposed to update the Nutrition Facts label for packaged foods to reflect the latest scientific information, including the link between diet and chronic diseases such as obesity and heart disease. The proposed label also would replace out-of-date serving sizes to better align with how much people really eat, and it would feature a fresh design to highlight key parts of the label such as calories and serving sizes.
“Our guiding principle here is very simple: that you as a parent and a consumer should be able to walk into your local grocery store, pick up an item off the shelf, and be able to tell whether it’s good for your family,” said First Lady Michelle Obama. “So this is a big deal, and it’s going to make a big difference for families all across this country.”
“For 20 years consumers have come to rely on the iconic nutrition label to help them make healthier food choices,” said FDA Commissioner Margaret A. Hamburg, M.D. “To remain relevant, the FDA’s newly proposed Nutrition Facts label incorporates the latest in nutrition science as more has been learned about the connection between what we eat and the development of serious chronic diseases impacting millions of Americans.”
Some of the changes to the label the FDA proposed today would:
- Require information about the amount of “added sugars” in a food product. The 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans states that intake of added sugar is too high in the U.S. population and should be reduced. The FDA proposes to include “added sugars” on the label to help consumers know how much sugar has been added to the product.
- Update serving size requirements to reflect the amounts people currently eat. What and how much people eat and drink has changed since the serving sizes were first put in place in 1994. By law, serving sizes must be based on what people actually eat, not on what people “should” be eating. Present calorie and nutrition information for the whole package of certain food products that could be consumed in one sitting.
- Present “dual column” labels to indicate both “per serving” and “per package” calorie and nutrition information for larger packages that could be consumed in one sitting or multiple sittings.
- Require the declaration of potassium and vitamin D, nutrients that some in the U.S. population are not getting enough of, which puts them at higher risk for chronic disease. Vitamin D is important for its role in bone health. Potassium is beneficial in lowering blood pressure. Vitamins A and C would no longer be required on the label, though manufacturers could declare them voluntarily.
- Revise the Daily Values for a variety of nutrients such as sodium, dietary fiber and Vitamin D. Daily Values are used to calculate the Percent Daily Value on the label, which helps consumers understand the nutrition information in the context of a total daily diet.
- While continuing to require “Total Fat,” “Saturated Fat,” and “TransFat” on the label, “Calories from Fat” would be removed because research shows the type of fat is more important than the amount.
- Refresh the format to emphasize certain elements, such as calories, serving sizes and Percent Daily Value, which are important in addressing current public health problems like obesity and heart disease.
The proposed updates reflect new dietary recommendations, consensus reports, and national survey data, such as the 2010 Dietary Guidelines for Americans, nutrient intake recommendations from the Institute of Medicine, and intake data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES). The FDA also considered extensive input and comments from a wide range of stakeholders.
“By revamping the Nutrition Facts label, FDA wants to make it easier than ever for consumers to make better informed food choices that will support a healthy diet.” said Michael R. Taylor, the FDA’s deputy commissioner for foods and veterinary medicine. “To help address obesity, one of the most important public health problems facing our country, the proposed label would drive attention to calories and serving sizes.”
The Nutrition Facts label has been required on food packages for 20 years, helping consumers better understand the nutritional value of foods so they can make healthy choices for themselves and their families. The label has not changed significantly since 2006 when information on trans fat had to be declared on the label, prompting manufacturers to reduce partially hydrogenated oils, the main source oftrans fat, in many of their products.
The changes proposed today affect all packaged foods except certain meat, poultry and processed egg products, which are regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Food Safety and Inspection Service.
The FDA is also proposing to make corresponding updates to the Supplement Facts label on dietary supplements where applicable.
The agency is accepting public comment on the proposed changes for 90 days.
For more information:
- Federal Register notice
- 2nd Federal Register notice
- Nutrition Facts at a Glance
- Questions and Answers
- Consumer Update: Nutrition Facts Label: Proposed Changes Aim to Better Inform Food Choices
- Consumer Update: Food Serving Sizes Getting a Reality Check
- Consumer Update: Proposed Nutrition Facts Label Changes Based on Science and Research
- FDA Voice Blog
- What’s Different infographic (PDF – 587KB)
- Serving size infographic (PDF – 556KB)
- Sound bites
- Let’s Move!
The FDA, an agency within the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, protects the public health by assuring the safety, effectiveness, and security of human and veterinary drugs, vaccines and other biological products for human use, and medical devices. The agency also is responsible for the safety and security of our nation’s food supply, cosmetics, dietary supplements, products that give off electronic radiation, and for regulating tobacco products.
— by Rich Dunn, NVRDC 2nd Vice Chair
Last week Nevada Appeal columnist Bo Statham presented the progressive case against this year’s education initiative, an issue that’s dividing Democrats in a year when party unity has never been more important.
Those divisions were plain to see at January’s state central committee meeting, where a resolution supporting the initiative passed 92-78 overall, but was voted down in the north by a 51-3 margin after members heard from construction union representatives that the proposed law would cost jobs in their industry. In the south, a large turnout of teachers put reform of education funding top of mind, so the resolution passed.
All Democrats I know agree that Nevada needs a higher level of funding for public education, unlike many Republicans, who want to divert existing public funding from district schools to private and charter schools. But this is a question of priorities, and the only way to get this state’s priorities straight is to elect more Democrats.
That’s something about which we should all be able to agree, yet in 2010, when we had a chance to elect a governor who made education his top priority, we didn’t see the level of commitment needed to make it happen. Instead we ended up with a Republican governor who allows his party’s tax aversion to trump adequate education funding. Sadly, it appears that our party is now giving him a pass for reelection, which brings to mind the oft-repeated political adage: Elections have consequences.
Margin tax not the answer for state education
— by Bo Statham
The Education Initiative, better known as the Gross Margin Tax proposal, will be on the 2014 ballot for voter consideration. Supported passionately by those who believe Nevada’s public school system requires higher funding, the tax would raise an estimated $800 million a year dedicated to that purpose. The business community vigorously opposes the proposed tax.
This column will not please either supporters or opponents. Instead, it focuses on the need to restructure Nevada’s tax system to more equitably provide required funding for all public needs.
It seems beyond question that K-12 education is in need of greater financial resources, but a gross margin tax on a segment of the business sector would be neither fair nor a good component of Nevada fiscal policy.
Sponsored by the Education Initiative Political Action Committee, formed primarily by teachers and school groups, the margin tax would be a new levy of 2 percent on businesses with annual incomes of at least $1 million. Gaming revenue is exempt. A company could deduct from total income certain expenses or alternatively chose to deduct 30 percent of total income, whichever results in a lower tax.
It is important to understand this would not be an income tax, which is based on a company’s profit. The proposed margin tax would be assessed even if a company made no profit.
The Nevada Policy Research Institute described the margin tax as “one of the most hare-brained schemes ever to come before state lawmakers.” The independent Tax Foundation calls gross-receipts taxes “distortive and destructive.”
Underlying opposition to the tax is the fear it will make Nevada less competitive. But let’s look at the facts.
The Tax Foundation ranks Nevada, one of nine states without corporate and personal income tax, third overall in its 2014 Business Tax Climate index but 36th in Best States for Business and Careers. Forbes concludes, “While Nevada scores well in business costs, it does not score well in factors such as labor supply, economic climate, and quality of life.” CNBC’s 2013 business ratings found Nevada ranked “well in business friendliness and cost of living, but did not rank well in areas such as the economy and education.”
A fair interpretation of these ratings is that Nevada’s fiscal policy results in a very attractive tax burden for businesses and residents but a poor environment for economic development. The state fails to foster skilled labor, education, economic climate and quality of life that are valued by business.
According to a 2011 U.S. Census Bureau report, Nevada’s state revenue per capita of $3,848 was the second-lowest of all states, and state spending per capita of $4,848 was the fourth-lowest. This “low taxes-low public funding” tradition reflects an anti-government mentality that does not serve Nevada well.
Increased financial support is one vital component of improving public education in Nevada, but a gross margin tax is not the way to fund it. The proposed tax would only add to an already-failed fiscal policy that is misguided, inequitable and regressive.
Bo Statham is a retired lawyer, congressional aide and businessman. He lives in Gardnerville and can be reached at email@example.com.
—by Thom Hartmann
The mainstream media is failing us when it comes to covering the story of the century – made climate change. And, as Media Matters has recently reported, there’s no better example of this failure than the decline of climate coverage at Reuters since that news organization hired Paul Ingrassia as as an editor. Ingrassia is a self-described “climate skeptic,” and questions whether or not global warming is man-made. Denying climate is absolutely insane.
The Center for American Progress recently completed two related reports that are read-worthy:
Cash for Homes: Policy Implications of an Investor-Led Housing Recovery
Across the country, investors have been taking advantage of the nation’s foreclosure crisis to purchase homes at bargain prices, often beating out potential homeowners who have been a bit hesitant to purchase, frequently choosing to sideline themselves. In July 2013, cash-on-hand investors bought about 55 percent of the homes sold in Las Vegas and numerous properties in other major metropolitan areas such as Miami, Phoenix, and Prince George’s County, Maryland, a suburb of Washington, D.C.
Investors can play a key role in a housing recovery. By absorbing excess inventory, they establish a floor for home prices and jump-start appreciation. Responsible investors can also offer quality, affordable rental opportunities to families who may be locked out of home ownership due to foreclosure or lost wealth from the recession.
But while they can support communities, irresponsible investors can also destroy them by allowing properties to sit empty, declining to bring rental properties up to code, and neglecting tenants’ needs in instances where the home is occupied. Additionally, investors that buy large quantities of properties in a single area can cause prices to overheat and increase market volatility. Conversely, if institutional investors following a set business plan sell numerous properties in the same time frame, prices in those neighborhoods could decline again.
When Wall Street Buys Main Street
The Implications of Single-Family Rental Bonds for Tenants and Housing Markets
In October 2013, an institutional investor created the first triple-A-rated, mortgage-backed security supported by revenue from single-family rental properties, a development that may offer even lower-cost financing to institutional buyers than has been available thus far through bank credit lines. A mortgage-backed security is created by pooling assets together and then selling interests in that pool to investors, who then receive regular payments from the asset pool. This process provides access to a much larger pool of investors than would otherwise be feasible, increasing liquidity and generally providing a less expensive source of funding than traditional borrowing from banks or private investors.
In this instance, a subsidiary of the private equity firm Blackstone took out a $479.1 million loan from Deutsche Bank that was secured by a pool of more than 3,000 single-family rental homes. The loan was then turned into a security that was purchased by investors, who now receive monthly rental cash payments from the homes. If the loan is not repaid, the trustee—the legal representative of the bondholders—has the right to seize the homes.
The emergence of a new form of mortgage-backed securities tied to single-family rentals is certain to have an impact on the housing market, communities, and tenants. Analysts predict that the funding of single-family rental acquisitions through securitization will likely become a dominant model quickly; American Homes 4 Rent and Colony American Homes, two new single-family rental firms, are reportedly preparing to launch single-family rental bonds in the coming months. The market for this new asset class is expected to top $70 billion per year by 2016, on par with the bond financing for apartment buildings, casinos, and commercial real estate for this year. While institutional investors only represent a fraction of those in the housing market—mid-sized companies and small mom-and-pop investors who own less than 10 properties are currently far more prevalent in most markets—securitization may begin to shift this balance.
Depending on the success of this new asset class, investor appetite for these types of bonds may boost the size and scope of this relatively new and untested industry to a level that may not be sustainable, either because the industry does not have the capacity to manage thousands of new homes or because a significant increase in purchases inflates home prices.
This material above was created by the Center for American Progress Action Fund. It was created for the Progress Report, the daily e-mail publication of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Click here to subscribe.