DailyFinance.comhttp://www.dailyfinance.comDailyFinance.comhttp://o.aolcdn.com/os/df/2013/img/2-dailyfinance_logo_m.pngDailyFinance.comhttp://www.dailyfinance.comen-usCopyright 2013 Weblogs, Inc. The contents of this feed are available for non-commercial use only.Blogsmith http://www.blogsmith.com/Classic Cosmetics: Kinder to Your Skin, Your Wallet and the Earthhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/18/classic-cosmetics-cheaper-green-better-for-skin/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/18/classic-cosmetics-cheaper-green-better-for-skin/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/18/classic-cosmetics-cheaper-green-better-for-skin/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

IMAGE SOURCE Spa / Beauty ROB LEWINE - Oatmeal mask
Getty Images
Makeup can be dangerous.

Looking at the rows of toners and powders, lipsticks and rouges packing the corner drug store, cosmetics seem innocent enough. But under the bright colors and attractive packaging, the sex appeal and huge advertising budgets, dangers lurk -- industrial solvents and carcinogens, deadly metals and petroleum distillates. And even beyond the health dangers, there are environmental worries -- concerns about where these ingredients come from and what their extraction does to the Earth.

On the other hand, it wasn't always this way. Sure, the ancient Romans sometimes mixed lead with their cosmetics, and 19th century Americans occasionally killed whales to get the raw ingredients for their perfumes. But, on the whole, cosmetics and skincare have gotten a lot less friendly over the past few decades.

Luckily, many of the classic cosmetics and skincare products your grandmother used are still going strong today. Here are nine of our favorite brands that are gentle on your wallet and will leave your skin and hair feeling great.

Gallery: Classic Cosmetics: Kinder to Your Skin, Your Wallet and the Earth

Satin PillowcasesWitch HazelRosewaterCold CreamSmith's Rosebud Salve


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>AcneAveenoBruce WatsonCarcinogensColdcosmeticsGalenHealthIrritant diaper dermatitismakeupsavingsSunburnTwitterBruce WatsonTue, 18 Jun 2013 11:00:00 ESTAmerican Dads by the Numbers: A Father's Day Run-Downhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/15/american-dads-numbers-fathers-day-rundown/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/15/american-dads-numbers-fathers-day-rundown/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/15/american-dads-numbers-fathers-day-rundown/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Father's Day
Alamy
Father's Day is here, bringing with it the yearly parade of neckties and bottles of Scotch and barbecue tools. But while the traditional Father's Day gifts aren't likely to change anytime soon, fatherhood itself is in the middle of a major transformation. The number of single dads has never been higher; for that matter, neither is the number of hours that men spend with their offspring. American dads are spending more time shopping, cooking, and taking care of their kids than at any time in history.

With that in mind, here are 10 numbers that paint a picture of the changing American father.



Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>A Boy Named SueAtticus FinchBillboard Hot 100Brad PaisleyBruce WatsonBryan MillsCat StevenschildrenDance with My FatherElvis PresleyEntertainmentEric ClaptonFather and Sonfathers dayGeorge StraitHealthHot Country SongsJohn MayerJohnny CashLocalLuther VandrossMadonnaMothers DayPapa Dont PreachPapa Was a Rollin StoneparentingplanningsavingScotchThe TemptationsTwitterU.S.UK Singles ChartUnited States Census BureauBruce WatsonSat, 15 Jun 2013 05:00:00 ESTKnow Where to Run to: The 5 Best Countries With No Extraditionhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/11/best-countries-no-extradition-edward-snowden-prism-nsa/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/11/best-countries-no-extradition-edward-snowden-prism-nsa/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/11/best-countries-no-extradition-edward-snowden-prism-nsa/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

leaker/whistleblower Edward Snowden
Handout / Getty ImagesFormer CIA employee and NSA contractor Edward Snowden is currently hiding out in Hong Kong.
The ever-expanding National Security Agency PRISM scandal has raised a host of philosophical questions about government, freedom and privacy. But one question has been on many people's minds that has less to do with big ideas and more to do with practical ones: How did self-confessed leaker/whistleblower Edward Snowden think he was going to escape prosecution by Uncle Sam after he revealed details of the secret government surveillance program?

The answer, apparently, was by fleeing to a country with no extradition treaty with the United States: The former CIA employee and NSA contractor is currently hiding out in Hong Kong. But the ex-intelligence man would have been smart to do a little more research before going on the lam: Hong Kong may not be quite the sanctuary he'd hoped for.

In some ways, Hong Kong is a great place to hide out. While technically, it has an extradition agreement with the U.S., the treaty was signed in 1996, a year before Great Britain transferred control of Hong Kong to China. Since the U.S. doesn't have an extradition agreement with China, it's possible that Snowden may be able to stay there. Certainly, it's a better bet than his original destination, Iceland, a country that has an unambiguous extradition pact with the U.S.

In the grand scheme of things, however, Snowden would have been better served heading to a country with a more clear-cut non-extradition policy. Unfortunately, most countries that refuse to cooperate with the U.S. government are Communist dictatorships, theocracies, failed states, or are otherwise less than ideal. But there are a few hidden gems among them.

In 2010, during the heyday of the post-financial crash Wall Street witch hunt, I compiled a list of the most attractive places to flee to if you happened to be, for example, a Goldman Sachs employee with a few bags of money and a desire to avoid subpoenas or possible criminal charges. Three years later, the list is still worth a peek, especially if you happen to be a U.S. government whistleblower who doesn't want to spend the rest of his days in Fort Leavenworth.

Here are the highlights:

Gallery: The 5 Best Countries With No Extradition

Croatia: For the OutdoorsmanKazakhstan: For the 'Star Trek' EnthusiastDubai: For the International PlayboyWestern Sahara: For the Would-Be Bond VillainBhutan: For the Spiritual Hermit


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Read | Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>crimeedward snowdenextraditionnsapowerofplanningprivacyretirementsavingssurveillancewhistleblowerBruce WatsonTue, 11 Jun 2013 13:00:00 ESTYou Thought You Were Safe? 6 Myths and Realities of Online Securityhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/online-security-privacy-myths-realities-prism/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/online-security-privacy-myths-realities-prism/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/online-security-privacy-myths-realities-prism/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Online security
Alamy

Even at the best of times, surfing the Web involves a delicate dance between security and freedom. After all, while you have the freedom to visit any site in the world, the thought that your favorite website might be infected with malware can put a dent in your plans. And, as the recent furor over the NSA, Prism, and the federal government's access to our online information has highlighted, when it comes to privacy on the Internet, nobody is completely secure.

For years, security experts have offered a more-or-less unchanging menu of advice. But do things like shredding your documents and changing your passwords really keep you safe? To find out, I talked to Bo Holland, founder and CEO of identity theft protection company AllClearID. Here are his thoughts on the most important moves for ensuring your safety ... as well as the ones that aren't quite as important anymore.

Gallery: You Thought You Were Safe? The Myths and Realities of Your Online Security

ShreddingStrong PasswordsKeep on Top of UpdatesDouble-Check Your BankSet E-Mail and Text Alerts


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.


Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Annualcreditreport.comBruce Watsoncredit cardscredit reportdata breachFreeCreditReport.cominternetpasswordssavingssecurityTwitterBruce WatsonMon, 10 Jun 2013 15:17:00 ESTGrandma's 7 Favorite Household Cleansers: Cheaper, and Greener Toohttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/grandmas-favorite-household-cleansers-cheaper-greener/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/grandmas-favorite-household-cleansers-cheaper-greener/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/10/grandmas-favorite-household-cleansers-cheaper-greener/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Alamy Grandma's cleaners

View Poll

Strolling through the household cleansers section of a grocery store can sometimes seem like a trip through a chemical wonderland, a cross between Willy Wonka's factory and a high school science lab. Multicolored potions peek from hundreds of bottles and lurid labels advertise the latest miracle cleansers. Bizarre and beautiful brands abound: Some claim to be they're easier on the environment, others promise that they won't harm your family. All seem to guarantee that they will make even your toughest stains disappear.

It would be natural to yearn for something simpler -- a few household cleaners that are effective, not too expensive, and not too rough on the environment. The wonderful thing is, these cleaners exist, and have existed for decades. They are, in short, the tried-and-true brands that your mother and grandmother used.

In the search for cleaner, healthier homes, it's easy to dismiss the harsh chemicals of the past. Yet, it's also worth noting that the active ingredients in many popular cleaners -- things like ammonia and borax, alcohol and vinegar -- are basically the same things that grandma used, albeit with the addition of lots of water and a little food coloring.

And therein lies one of grandma's secrets: Filling bottles with water and shipping them across the country is expensive, and the manufacturers charge you for the extra gas. If you add the water from your tap, instead of relying on Windex and Mr. Clean to do so, you can save a lot of money. As an added plus, you're also cutting down on the gas used to ship your products around and the number of harsh chemicals that you're adding to the environment.


With that in mind, here are a few of our (and Grandma's) favorites:
Play Gallery here

Did You Know: Cheapest Cleaning Solution


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>20 Mule Team BoraxBar Keepers FriendBon AmiCastile soapcleaningenvironmentally friendlygreenMr. CleansavingsavingsexperimentBruce WatsonMon, 10 Jun 2013 10:00:00 EST'Don't Insure Me, Bro!': Why Obamacare Critics Focus on Young Dudeshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/obamacare-critics-focus-young-men/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/obamacare-critics-focus-young-men/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/obamacare-critics-focus-young-men/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Anti-Obamacare Campaign targets young, healthy men
Alamy
In January, one of Obamacare's most controversial provisions will come into effect: Every person in America will be required to either have health insurance or pay a penalty. Overall, the effect will likely be a net positive: Because of subsidies, the cost of insurance will be kept down for many households, and in many states, a Medicaid expansion will help even more families pay for their healthcare. But while the outlook is great for millions of workers, things are going to be tougher for at least one group: healthy, financially secure men in their twenties.

So, guess which group Obamacare critics have focused on when they attack the effects of the program? I'll give you three guesses, but you'll probably only need one.

On Wednesday, New York magazine's Jonathan Chait pointed out the surprising trend, noting that critics of the Affordable Care Act have almost universally cited the group in their attacks. Likening the move to an old-time patent medicine show ("You, sir - the healthy 25-year-old in front who has never been hospitalized or needed medication in his life! Step right up!"), he suggested that the attacks on Obamacare are, to put it mildly, skewed.

Sponsored Links
On the surface, targeting the law's impact on healthy 25-year-old men seems like a masterstroke. After all, it's hard to argue for the fairness of a system that charges healthy young people to pay for the health care needs of sickly older ones. The trouble is, today's healthy 25-year-old male could easily become tomorrow's hit-and-run victim, desperately in need of long-term medical care. And, barring that, today's healthy 20-something will, with any luck, become a less-healthy 50-something, in need of an affordable method to cover his medications and regular doctor's visits.

(Or, as happened to me when I was an uninsured man in my mid-20s, today's healthy young 25-year-old could be tomorrow's guy paying out-of-pocket for wisdom teeth extraction.)

Obamacare has numerous provisions that will extend coverage and make health insurance cheaper. Among other things, it will help cover the Medicare Part D coverage gap, will end exclusions for pre-existing conditions, and will require health care plans to cover preventative care. For tens of millions of people, these provisions, and others, will translate into lower medical costs, a previously unimaginable access to health care, and a generally improved quality of life. Given the huge potential benefits, maybe it's time for Obamacare's critics to stop shedding crocodile tears for the relatively small portion of the populace that is going to have to take one for the team -- and, in the process, get insurance that may well make them safer and healthier.

Gallery: Obamacare Myths

MedicareDeath PanelsYour WalletSocialismSmall Business


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Healthhealth insuranceJonathan ChaitMedicaidmedicareobamacarePatient Protection and Affordable Care ActsavingsBruce WatsonFri, 07 Jun 2013 16:30:00 ESTThe New (Old) Family Doctor: Cheaper, Better Care Without Insurancehttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/direct-primary-care-ryan-neuhofel/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/direct-primary-care-ryan-neuhofel/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/07/direct-primary-care-ryan-neuhofel/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

Tara Higgins, Fosse Photography - Home doctor visits
Tara Higgins, Fosse Photography
In old movies and TV shows, medical care always seems like a simple thing. When Beaver Cleaver or Jem Finch is sick or injured, the kindly neighborhood doctor shows up, fixes everything, and gives the parents a bill. Payment usually occurs off screen, but the medical expenses never seem especially onerous: the "Beaver's Tonsils" episode of Leave it to Beaver doesn't finish with Mr. Cleaver telling his son to hold on for a month until finances are better. And the broken arm scene in To Kill a Mockingbird doesn't end with Atticus telling Jem to man up until they can make it to the free clinic. Instead, the process is simple: injury, treatment, payment, healing.

For a growing number of doctors who are trying to recapture the simplicity -- and profitability -- of old fashioned family medicine, the solution seems to lie in taking out one ingredient: insurance companies. These non-insurance practices, which generally go under the name "concierge doctors" or "direct primary care practices," are usually aimed toward high-end patients, who can pay thousands of dollars per year to retain doctors who will see them at a moment's notice. But while the concierge model is attractive, it is also out of the price range of most people.

Re-creating the Small Town Doctor

In Lawrence, Kansas, Dr. Ryan Neuhofel, DO, MPH is approaching direct primary care from a different angle. While in medical school, he realized that the traditional model of medical care wasn't for him. "I had an overly romantic vision of what a small-town doctor could be in today's health care system," he recalls. "I wanted to build a direct model that would work for most people."

Dr. Ryan Neuhofel
Dr. Ryan Neuhofel

Dr. Neuhofel's patients pay a base fee that starts at $10 per month for someone under 30 and ranges up to $50 per month for a family. In return, they have 24/7 web and phone access to the doctor, as well as free administration and processing of many basic lab tests. Beyond that, patients pay for each service, from $10 for a cholesterol panel to $100 for certain kinds of casts. In-office visits cost $20 for 15 minutes; house calls -- house calls! -- cost $100.

Neuhofel's prices are far below market rate. "I'm able to charge less than half the Medicare cost for most procedures," he says. "While insurance policies vary, I think that most of my prices are about what a patient would usually pay for a copay." And, because he doesn't have to spend hours wrangling with insurers -- or, worse yet, hiring a staff member to do so -- Neuhofel can make a tidy profit, even with his lower prices.

On an immediate level, this translates into much closer contact with each of his patients. The average family practice doctor sees 2,000 to 3,000 patients per year. By comparison, Neuhofel is hoping to build a practice with about 1,000 patients. "That number will enable me to make about the same amount of money as the average general practitioner, while also allowing me to give them a much higher level of service," he explains.

Cutting Back on Insurance

The trouble with the current system, Neuhofel argues, is not that patients have health insurance, but rather that they are entirely dependent upon it. "I tell people that insurance is best reserved for expensive, unexpected events," he explains. For health maintenance and minor problems, he believes, most people should probably be paying out-of-pocket. "Health insurance should be like car insurance," he says."You don't bill your car insurance for oil changes or little scratches in your car's paint job."

Sponsored Links
With that in mind, Neuhofel advises his patients to get catastrophic, high-deductible insurance to give them protection against severe health problems. "Personally, I have health insurance for catastrophic problems," he says. "I hope that I never have to use it!"

Even so, Neuhofel estimates that 70 percent of his patients are uninsured; in fact, many are referrals from local emergency rooms, where the cost of care would be untenable. For these patients, he's a serious bargain. "I've seen people in my area pay $2,000, $3,000 or even $4,000 for something that I could have handled for $50."

Streamlining to Save Money

But for all of his old-fashioned customer service, Neuhofel also makes use of some very advanced technologies in his attempts to keep prices low. His office is almost entirely paperless, and he schedules most appointments through e-mail or via phone message.

And many of Neuhofel's more basic consultations take place online: Patients send him questions, often accompanied by pictures, and he advises them on a course of action. In a traditional medical setting, a doctor couldn't do phone consultations, largely because there would be no way for them to get payment for the time involved. Because of Neuhofel's membership model, he doesn't need to worry that the time he spends with patients won't be reimbursed.

"Our only concern is making things easier for our patients," Neuhofel explains. "They know that I'm paying attention, and the fact that I'm not rushed means that I am able to make a better diagnosis." And in the end, that's a profitable outcome for everyone ... with the possible exception of insurance companies.

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>family doctorshealthcaresavingsBruce WatsonFri, 07 Jun 2013 05:00:00 ESTThe Student Loan Battle Continues -- and Neither Side Offers a Great Dealhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/student-loan-plans-Obama-congress/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/student-loan-plans-Obama-congress/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/student-loan-plans-Obama-congress/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

President Obama
Getty Images
On Friday, President Obama once again took aim at the student loan crisis, accusing congressional Republicans of pushing a plan that would make college more expensive and, potentially, take it out of the reach of many lower-income students.

The battle over student loan rates -- which the president noted is now in its second year -- in many ways boils down to a question of economic responsibility. Currently, Congress sets the rate on federal student loans. If it raises the rates, loans become more expensive and, presumably, many students will opt out of going to college. If Congress lowers the rate, loans become less expensive and students will be more likely to stay in school. Both Congress and the president have offered proposals that would take this responsibility out of their hands, putting it on the market.

Different Proposals

As those of us who went to school from the early 1990s through the mid-2000s can remember, student loan rates were once tied to U.S. Treasury bonds. When the interest rates on bonds rose and fell, loan interest rates followed suit. On the bright side, there was a cap, or limit, to how high the rates could go. Unfortunately, that cap was high -- for a time, it topped out at 9 percent. By comparison, student loan rates currently range from 3.4 percent (for subsidized Stafford loans) to 7.9 percent (for PLUS loans).

Congress and the president are both proposing new guidelines that would tie the interest rate to the economy. Under the president's proposal, 10-year Treasury notes would be the benchmark for loan interest. The interest rate on subsidized Stafford loans would be the Treasury note rate plus 0.93 percent; on unsubsidized Stafford loans, it would be Treasury rate plus 2.93 percent; and on loans to grad students and parents, it would be Treasury plus 3.93 percent.

Today, the Obama proposal would be a considerable benefit to students. It would lower the subsidized Stafford loan rate by 0.65 percent, the unsubsidized Stafford rate by 2.05 percent and the grad rate by 1.05 percent. The trouble is that the Treasury note interest rate is currently near historic lows and is almost certain to rise if the economic rally ever kicks into gear. As The Atlantic noted, there are times during the past few decades when -- under the proposed plan -- student loan interest rates would have jumped above 12 percent.

And, because, the president's plan also doesn't put a cap on interest rates, there would theoretically be no limit to how much students could end up paying.

The Congressional Plan

On the bright side, Congress' plan puts a cap on interest rates: For subsidized loans, students couldn't end up paying more than 8.5 percent; on unsubsidized loans, it couldn't be more than 10.5 percent. And while these rates are quite high, they are still lower than the potential rates that students could be stuck with under Obama's proposal.

Sponsored Links
But when it comes to the minimum rate, the Congressional plan falls down. Currently, the interest rate is determined when the loan is issued, which means that students borrowing money can count on a consistent rate for the life of their loans. Under the Congressional proposal, federal student loans would be variable rate, which means that the percentage that students would have to pay would fluctuate with the economy.

Rating the Proposals

Put another way, the rate issue boils down to an Obama plan, which would establish loan rates that could theoretically be extremely high but would not change during the duration of the loan. Congress, on the other hand, would establish rates that would be limited, but could go up or down, depending on the vagaries of the economy.

This variable rate could have an upside: When the economy is doing well and hiring is strong, rates would likely rise; conversely, when the economy is sluggish, rates would fall. For borrowers, this could translate into lower rates during hard times and higher rates during boom cycles.

By comparison, the current method, which establishes firm rates, is not responsive to economic ups and downs. Because of this, students who attend school during economic boom times but have to repay their loans during economic busts can easily find themselves trying to service high-rate loans at the worst possible times. This, incidentally, is a big part of the problem now: Many students who took out loans at 8 percent or higher during the 1990s and 2000s are in repayment mode when interest rates are low and hiring is sluggish.

Payback Is (But Doesn't Have to Be) Hell

But if Obama's loan rate plan is potentially problematic, his payback plan is very promising. Pay As You Earn, the president's first stab at the student loan issue, was designed to ensure that students could not become enslaved by crushing loan debt. Instituted last year, the program caps student loan repayment levels at 10 percent of the borrower's discretionary income, effectively ensuring that recent graduates won't get stuck with brutal monthly payments. At the same time, the program also places an effective limit on the length of repayment: After a student has been paying off their debt for 20 years, the program will retire any debt that remains.

It's a great idea, and could go a long way toward ending the student loan debt carousel that so many workers are stuck on. Unfortunately, there are some rather severe caveats. To begin with, Pay As You Earn is only available to students who have taken out at least one student loan after fiscal year 2011. In other words, most people who are already in repayment hell are stuck there.

Also, the program only applies to federally backed student loans, which means that many people struggling under the worst loan debt -- those who took out higher-interest private loans -- are ineligible.

Ultimately, the student loan issue bleeds across the economy, with ripples that go far beyond recent grads. As Obama noted in Friday's speech, high student loan debt translates into lowered economic activity. As students struggle to pay their loans, they often aren't able to afford to buy cars and houses and other consumer goods that would help boost the economy. With that in mind, the goal, ultimately, must be to make loan payments a reasonable and affordable part of a graduate's budget, not a crushing burden that makes other expenses impossible. Under that rubric, however, both Obama and Congress' plans are a failure.

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>college tuitioneducationinterest ratesloansPay As You Earnsavingsstudent debtstudent debt crisisStudent LoansBruce WatsonMon, 03 Jun 2013 05:00:00 ESTPlant the Seeds of Saving This Summerhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/02/vegetable-gardening-most-profitable-plants/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/02/vegetable-gardening-most-profitable-plants/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/06/02/vegetable-gardening-most-profitable-plants/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

father and daughter Vegetable gardenOnce upon a time, vegetable gardens were all but ubiquitous. Whether they tended a small container garden in the city or a backyard plot in the country, many -- if not most -- families had at least a few food-producing plants. In World War II, "Victory Gardens," maintained by ordinary families, contributed to the war effort by growing 40 percent of the country's produce. Since then, community gardens, city farms, and even green roofs have been part of the fabric of America's food production.

But for all that, the idea that every family should have at least a small garden has faded. It's not hard to see why: In many ways, America has become a produce wonderland. Whether the month is January or June, whether the place is San Francisco or St. Louis, most of us are rarely more than a short drive away from a reasonably ripe tomato, a crispy head of lettuce and a fairly fresh onion. And, given our economies of scale, this embarrassment of riches isn't all that expensive; even out-of-season, a red bell pepper rarely runs more than a few dollars, and a red (well, pinkish) tomato doesn't cost much more than a can of Coke.

How to Start Up a Garden For Less
Or, to put it another way, when Grandma can easily afford to buy beans and fresh basil at the local grocery store, she doesn't really need to grow her own anymore.

But while fresh fruits and veggies are easy to find, high quality ones, grown with minimal pesticides and maximum taste, are rarer -- and a whole lot more expensive. And while modern cultivation and transportation has made fresh veggies available to almost everyone, the cost has been huge. Whether the issue is e Coli contamination, a lack of nutrition, an excess of pesticides, or the environmental impact of monocultures, it's clear that even a $1 tomato can carry a huge price tag.

With that in mind, you might want to consider taking a cue from Gram and growing a couple of plants this summer. Chances are that your produce will be tastier and healthier than the stuff you buy in the store -- and it might even be less expensive. While some vegetables, particularly potatoes, carrots, celery, asparagus and wheat, are not cost-effective, many fruits and vegetables pay for themselves, particularly after you cover the initial startup costs of constructing a garden bed or window box. With that in mind, here are nine of the best -- and most profitable -- vegetables that you can produce in your backyard (or on your fire escape!).

Gallery: Most profitable Plants

Seeds




Photo Credit: Alamy

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>foodgardensavingsSavings ExperimentSavingsExperimentBruce WatsonSun, 02 Jun 2013 06:00:00 ESTIn the Market for a BIG Fridge? Buy a Surplus Morgue Refrigeratorhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/31/NYC-morgue-refrigerator-for-sale-ebay/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/31/NYC-morgue-refrigerator-for-sale-ebay/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/31/NYC-morgue-refrigerator-for-sale-ebay/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

morgue refrigerator
Alamy
Replacing your appliances can be an expensive business ... especially if you want something stylish, well-made and roomy. But if you've got the space, we might have the solution: The New York City Office of Mental Health is getting rid of one of its morgue refrigerators. Measuring 6 feet high, 6 feet wide, and 8 feet deep, the fridge is built to last, with chrome fittings and a premium stainless steel finish. Best of all, it's currently going for about $200 on eBay. Unfortunately, you have to pay for delivery.

morgue refrigerator
Model for sale (eBay)
Designed to hold four bodies, it's pretty clear that the morgue fridge will probably fulfill most of your refrigeration needs With a little retrofitting, it would make a perfect wine cellar or beer chest -- not to mention a great place to stash your perishables.

What would you do with a surplussed morgue refrigerator? Tell us in the comment section!


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>applianceseBaymorguenew york cityrefrigeratorsavingsBruce WatsonFri, 31 May 2013 11:12:00 ESTSummer Wedding Savings Tips for Guestshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/summer-wedding-savings-tips-for-guests/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/summer-wedding-savings-tips-for-guests/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/summer-wedding-savings-tips-for-guests/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Summer weddings

Summer wedding season is right around the corner, bringing its yearly bonanza of bridal showers and bachelor parties, destination trips and champagne toasts. While there are few things more wonderful than sharing the joy and delight of a young couple setting out on their future together, all those presents and plane tickets can add up -- especially if you're looking at a calendar packed full of joyous nuptials.

With that in mind, we've compiled a few of our favorite tips for saving on your wedding expenses. Take a peek -- and let us know if we've missed any of your top ideas.

GALLERY: Summer Wedding Savings Tips for GuestsPlay Gallery




Savings Experiment: Save on Your Wedding Dress
Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Photo Credit: Getty Images

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>lifestylesavingsSavings ExperimentsavingsexperimentweddingsBruce WatsonWed, 29 May 2013 17:23:00 ESTMore Women Are Bringing Home the Bacon, but More Men Are Shopping for Ithttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/pew-study-women-wage-earners/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/pew-study-women-wage-earners/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/29/pew-study-women-wage-earners/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

working women
Alamy
In the 1970s, Enjoli perfume attempted to capture the hearts (and dollars) of female consumers with its now-iconic commercial featuring a woman in a business suit who bragged that she could "Bring home the bacon ... and fry it up in a pan." The message, which was once revolutionary, has become commonplace: According to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center, women are now the sole or primary wage earner in 40 percent of households with children aged 18 or younger. But women aren't the only ones who've seen their traditional roles upended: Surveys conducted by marketers and advertisers show that an ever-growing number of men are becoming the primary shoppers for their households.

The Pew study carried both optimistic and pessimistic news. On the bright side, it revealed that an impressive 37 percent of "breadwinner moms" are married women who make more money than their husbands. These mothers tend to be older, college educated, and have a median family income of $80,000 -- about $30,000 more than the median for all U.S. families. And, while these married earners comprise less than half of all breadwinner moms, their share of the total is growing: The number of women who outearn their husbands has nearly quadrupled from 4 percent in 1960 to 15 percent in 2011.

Unfortunately, the number of single mothers has almost kept pace: Between 1960 and 2011, the share of households headed by single moms rose from 7 percent to 25 percent of families. And, while the rising number of married breadwinner moms reflects society's increasing opportunities for women, the story told by the growth in single-mother-headed households is not so optimistic: Younger and less likely to hold a college degree, single mothers have far less earning potential than their married sisters. In fact, the median income for a single mother household is $23,000 -- just 28 percent of the income of one in which the female breadwinner is married, and less than half the median household income in America.

There are several reasons for the rise of breadwinner moms: Over the last few decades, marriage rates have declined, the number of women in the workplace has increased, and the number of women earning college degrees now outstrips the number of men doing so.

Sponsored Links
Another reason is historical: The Great Recession of 2008 was, in many ways, a "mancession," with an outsized impact on male-dominated professions like manufacturing and construction. At the height of the recession, some estimates suggested that up to 80 percent of job losses hit men. And, while many of those men have since returned to work, a large number have moved on to a more traditionally female sphere: the home.

In 2011, advertising agency Allen and Gerritsen conducted a survey on household work patterns. Forty-four percent of the study's male respondents "stated that they have the sole responsibility for grocery shopping for their households." The same number claimed responsibility for non-grocery shopping. In the same study, 52 percent of male respondents reported that they shared responsibility for "transporting kids to activities" and "attending school meetings." Fifty percent reported that they shared responsibility for "helping kids with homework."

Advertisers aren't the only ones who have recognized the shift toward men at home and women at work: the Census Bureau reports that, between 1995 and 2011, the number of stay-at-home dads nearly tripled, from 64,000 to 176,000. In 2010, the Census notes, 17 percent of preschoolers were being cared for by their fathers while their mothers were at work.

This shift has already led to a major change in the way that marketers sell products. If Enjoli's bacon-bringer was the iconic face of female liberation in the 1970s, Huggies' 2012 "Dad Test" ads may have been one of the last gasps for the bumbling dad cliche of the 1990s and 2000s. The controversial campaign, which featured butterfingered fathers trying -- and failing -- to care for their children, provoked a major backlash as furious "Daddy Bloggers" took to the Internet with petitions and Facebook protests. As one critic wrote on Huggies' website, shortly before the company withdrew the ad campaign, "What is this, 1948?"

Following the backlash, Huggies rolled out a more dad-friendly campaign, a tactic that many other manufacturers (and retailers) have echoed. And, with more women in the office and men at home, this trend seems likely to continue. After all, with women bringing home the bacon and men frying it up in a pan, smart companies aren't going to risk angering either gender.

Gallery: The Worst-Paying Cities for Women

10. Seattle-Tacoma-Bellevue, Wash.9. Tulsa, Okla.8. Bridgeport-Stamford-Norwalk, Conn.7. Wichita, Kan.


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>earninggender rolesGreat RecessionhouseholdHousehold IncomeincomemancessionmenPew Research Centersavingstay at home dadswomenwomen in the workplaceBruce WatsonWed, 29 May 2013 15:30:00 ESTForget 3-D Printing: When It Comes to DIY Guns, There's a Much Bigger Dangerhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/3d-printing-gun-control-ak47/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/3d-printing-gun-control-ak47/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/3d-printing-gun-control-ak47/#commentsFiled under:

When it comes to gun control, one of the biggest issues has always been the question of where one can buy weapons. After the Kennedy assassination, for example, President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the 1968 Gun Control Act, which made it illegal to sell rifles and shotguns through the mail. Later, in 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act instituted background checks on gun sales, unless the sale occurs at a gun show. That little loophole has led to a thriving gun show business, a factor that still bedevils reformers attempting to regulate gun sales.

These days, one of the biggest concerns with gun access revolves around 3-D printers, particularly around the possibility that a shooter could produce an unregistered weapon in the privacy of his or her home. But, for all the fuss about 3-D printers, a much bigger -- and more dangerous -- gun loophole is looming.

Recently, Mother Jones reporter Bryan Schatz told the story of how he constructed a fully-functioning, perfectly legal semiautomatic AK-47 assault rifle. Most of the parts came from disassembled guns that were made elsewhere and are totally legal to sell. The receiver -- basically, the only part whose sale is closely regulated -- had to be constructed by hand, a process that took Schatz a few hours in a machine shop.

Homemade AK-47s are legal, as long as the owner doesn't have a criminal record. They also don't have serial numbers, which makes them basically untraceable and impossible to regulate. And, unlike a 3-D printed handgun, AK-47s can fire ten rounds per second, are extremely durable, and can be easily repaired or replaced.

But what about price? Most 3-D printers that are capable of printing a gun cost over $1,000, making them a far from economical choice when it comes to firearms. While Schatz was circumspect about the cost of his gun, it's possible to buy basic AK-47 kits online for as little as $119. A brand-new barrel (the original barrels are cut into pieces) costs another $200 or so, and -- assuming one has the proper tools -- the cost of making a receiver is negligible. If one goes to a "build party," like the one Schatz attended, the price drops more.

In other words, while 3-D printed guns may be the cutting edge of technology, the biggest safety danger on the market is a bit more modest: 65-year-old, extremely common bit of battlefield armament that can be constructed in a garage and ordered on the internet.

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>3-D printingAK-47gun controlgunsguns in americaBruce WatsonMon, 27 May 2013 13:30:00 ESTMemorial Day, Sequester-Style: Honoring Soldiers by Cutting Their Benefitshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/on/memorial-day-sequester-honoring-soldiers-cutting-beneifts/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/memorial-day-sequester-honoring-soldiers-cutting-beneifts/http://www.dailyfinance.com/on/memorial-day-sequester-honoring-soldiers-cutting-beneifts/#commentsFiled under: , ,

veteran cutting benefits
Getty Images
Unofficially, Memorial Day weekend marks the start of summer, and the opening day for many pools and amusement parks. But more meaningfully, Memorial Day is the day that America sets aside to honor the soldiers who died in its wars. This year, however, Memorial Day is tinged with an additional dark cloud, due to the painful cuts budget sequestration is inflicting on some of the honors and benefits that America bestows on its veterans and their families.

Taking Care of the Final Honor

One of the highest honors America gives to those who served it is burial in Arlington National Cemetery. Like Memorial Day itself, the cemetery dates back to the Civil War, when the federal government declared that the land surrounding General Robert E. Lee's mansion in Arlington would be used as a cemetery for the Union's fallen servicemen. Today, an estimated 400,000 former soldiers and their spouses -- including John F. Kennedy, civil rights leader Medgar Evers, and actor Lee Marvin -- are interred in the cemetery.

Arlington is one of the most exclusive cemeteries in America; the majority of those buried there were either active duty military personnel, retired from the military with full benefits, were prisoners of war, or had previously been awarded one of a small group of medals. It isn't hard to see why Arlington is so selective -- after all, if every person who ever served in the military was granted access to the cemetery, it would have long since been filled.

Right now, Arlington is in the middle of what planners call the Millennium Project, a long-term expansion and reconstruction that will protect the cemetery and make space available for more soldiers. Expansion and restoration don't come cheap: the Millennium Project is budgeted at $103 million. But, because the project's funding has been hit by sequestration, that budget has already been cut by 8 percent -- and funding for the cemetery may well be cut by even more in coming years.

The immediate impact of these cuts is fairly small: Instead of building two columbaria for storing the remains of the dead, Arlington will only be able to build one, a move that will cost the cemetery spaces for 3,000 veterans. Initially, it looked like personnel cuts were going to force the cemetery to cut its number of funerals by 160 per month, but a last-minute change made it possible for Arlington to cut its budget without furloughing any of its staff.

In the meantime, as Jennifer Lynch, the cemetery's public affairs officer, notes, "Arlington is absorbing this cut by using the last of the funds that were recovered from previous fiscal years." In other words, previous surpluses are making it possible for the cemetery to maintain regular operations. What will occur in the future is less clear. Lynch wouldn't speculate on how further cuts would affect the cemetery, but she did note that the cemetery "expects its 2014 budget to be further reduced." Those reductions -- which will eventually total an estimated 9.4 percent -- could have an impact on everything from plumbing to grave maintenance.

Taking Care of Families Left Behind

Arlington isn't the only place where sequestration will impact the way America treats its fallen soldiers and their families: Veterans' Administration and Department of Defense programs that are designed to help military families have also taken a hit under sequestration. The VA's Survivors' Pension Benefits program, which provides needs-based financial help for the spouses and children of fallen soldiers, is scheduled to lose $84.5 million, a 5.3 percent cut. Another program, the Dependency and Indemnity Compensation, gives a small monthly payment to the spouses and children of fallen soldiers. It's also facing a 5.3 percent cut, which will cost those survivors $307.5 million.

Sponsored Links
The children of deceased soldiers aren't the only kids who will be feeling the effects of sequestration. The Department of Defense Education Activity and the Supplemental to Impact Aid, two programs that help fund schools for military dependents, are both facing 5.2 percent cuts, which are likely to total almost $103 million. For military families stationed abroad or in domestic bases far from home, these programs sometimes mean the difference between a good school and a terrible one. And, with cuts eroding their funding, the scale is tipping toward terrible.

'A Slow, Negative Creep'

Given that the cuts to military programs are a relatively small 5.2 to 5.3 percent, it's easy to imagine that the effect will be similarly marginal. But as activist Jim Strickland, veterans' advocate and webmaster of VA Watchdog, points out, "Dependents and survivors aren't getting rich on what they're receiving each month." Assuming that a military widow even qualifies for dependency compensation, she will only receive $1,195 per month, plus an additional $296 for each dependent child.

With money slowly leaking out of the system, it seems likely that survivor benefits will continue to shrink, leading to what Strickland calls a "gradual negative creep from the bottom up." And, with VA money drying up, military families will become more dependent on civilian benefits like Medicaid, food stamps, social security, and other social safety net programs. Of course, those programs are also being stretched thin ... and many are facing sequestration cuts.

Ultimately, the problem comes down to visibility. America's soldiers and their families quietly serve, allowing the military to move them around the country -- and the world -- to where they're most needed. They don't make a lot of money, but part of the implied deal is that, if they are injured or killed, the military will take care of them and their families. That sacrifice is a large part of what Memorial Day was designed to honor.

Unlike TSA cuts, which lead to big headlines and attention-getting delays at airports, cuts to VA programs quietly impact people who have already agreed to support their country. Like so many beneficiaries of many other social safety net programs, veterans and their families are not loud or wealthy, and don't leap to put themselves in front of cameras. Still, they made a deal with the country, and are owed benefits commensurate with their sacrifices. Or, as Strickland puts it, "Until America has the resources available to take care of its vets and families, it should stop creating them."

Gallery: 6 Money Challenges Hitting Military Service-Members Hard

Gallery: 6 Money Challenges Hitting Military Service-Members Hard

1. Mortgage Products and Services2. Bank Accounts3. Credit Cards4. Credit Reporting



Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>budget cutsdefense spendingmemorial daymilitarysequestrationsurvivor benefitsVeterans AffairsVeterans benefitsBruce WatsonFri, 24 May 2013 18:00:00 ESTFill'er Up With Weird: Our Readers' Surprising Gas Saving Tipshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/unusual-gas-saving-tips-fuel-efficiency/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/unusual-gas-saving-tips-fuel-efficiency/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/unusual-gas-saving-tips-fuel-efficiency/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Gas tips vegetable oil
Getty Images
It's Memorial Day weekend, the unofficial start of summer -- a season of picnics, road trips, amusement parks, and higher gas prices as half the country takes to the road to soak up the sunshine. And, with the price of a gallon of regular well north of $3 again, it should be no surprise that the Internet is full of helpful hints for cutting down your fuel expenditures. But if you've gotten tired of hearing about carpooling or the gas buddy, maybe you're ready for some advice that's a little more ... extreme.

For years, DailyFinance has been asking its readers for their best gas saving advice. And, while we've heard our share of the usual suggestions to ride a bike or take public transit, many readers have offered ideas that are a little more exciting. With that in mind, we've compiled some of the best out-of-the-box suggestions for cutting down on your gas expenses.

If you've got a great, weird idea that isn't on this list, put it in the comments section, or send it my way!

Gallery: Tired of the Same Old Gas Saving Tips? Here Are Some From Left Field!

If You Can't Beat Them ... Buy Them!Lighten Up!Take a Breather!Timing Is EverythingIf You Can't Afford a Hybrid, Why Not Try a Diesel?


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ChevronDieselExxonMobilfuel efficiencygas pricesMemorial Daysave on gassavingstravelBruce WatsonFri, 24 May 2013 16:10:00 ESTSpring Cleaning: Less Stuff Means More Space, More Time and More Moneyhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/spring-cleaning-ideas/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/spring-cleaning-ideas/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/24/spring-cleaning-ideas/#commentsFiled under: ,

yard sale
Fooferkitten, Flickr.com
Spring officially started in late March, but with rainstorms and cold spells making weather unpredictable, it's been hard to get excited about spring cleaning. Now, though, warm weather seems to be settling in for good, and with yard-sale season just around the corner, it's the perfect time to clear out those cluttered closets and basements, organize those overflowing kitchen drawers and maybe even tackle the attic and basement. After all, you never know what you might find.

When it comes to spring cleaning, fighting the mess is only half the battle; the other half of the struggle lies in overcoming sentimental attachment to possessions that are outgrown, old, broken or otherwise no longer useful. With that in mind, here are some tips for taking control of your mess -- and your feelings about it -- and putting a few bucks back in your pocket while doing so.

Gallery: Spring Cleaning: Getting Rid of the Things You Like to Embrace a Lifestyle You'll Love

Find Your Clutter ZonesTotal Up the CostSet a GoalSet Up a FundBe Merciful with Yourself


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>clutterdeclutteringhoardingspring cleaningyard saleBruce WatsonFri, 24 May 2013 05:00:00 ESTA $12,000 Smartphone May Already Be in Your Pockethttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/21/smartphone-12000-dollar-value-time-savings/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/21/smartphone-12000-dollar-value-time-savings/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/21/smartphone-12000-dollar-value-time-savings/#commentsFiled under: , , , ,

Getty Images
Forget eating at home or forgoing your daily Starbucks run: According to a recent survey, the biggest money saver in your life is in your pocket. In April, market research firm Harris Interactive, working with ClickSoftware, a mobile management firm, concluded that smartphone owners saved an average of $12,000 per year by using the handy little machines.

The key to these savings lies in apps: By enabling users to perform tasks like checking email and browsing the web from any location, smartphones can save people a fair bit of time. In fact, according to the survey, people who use their smartphone to check email save an average of 35 minutes per day. Those who use it for web browsing saves an average of 33 minutes, those who use weather apps save 17 minutes, those who use map programs save 24 minutes, and those who use calendar apps save 23 minutes.

Sponsored Links
Now, not everyone uses their smartphone for all of those things, but all told, it still works out to an average time savings of about 88 minutes a day or over 535 hours a year, according to the survey. Based on a national average hourly wage of $22, that's the equivalent of $11,777 a year.

This value is even further increased when one considers the low entry cost. The average smartphone runs customers about $174, about 1.5 percent of the yearly savings that the phone can potentially yield. That's only part of the equation, but even factoring an average yearly cost of about $1,700 for a data, texting and voice plan, smartphones are a pretty good deal.

Of course, this assumes that all that time on the smartphone is used productively, and that users spend the spare time they gain on productive pursuits. Unfortunately, the opposite may often be true: The survey also noted that 26 percent of users played games on their phones, 39 percent spent time on social networking, and 42 percent engaged in texting. In other words, for people trying to keep their mind on work, that little gadget can be a big temptation -- and a pretty major time waster.

Gallery: Best Apps to Manage Your Money

ManillaWallabyHead-to-head: Mint vs. HelloWalletBillGuardWattzOn



Cell phone graphic

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>androidappsiphonesaving moneysaving timesavingssmartphonesBruce WatsonTue, 21 May 2013 15:33:00 ESTBreak's Over, Santa: Ticketmaster Kicks Off Christmas Season in Mayhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/ticketmaster-sells-rockettes-christmas-tickets-may/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/ticketmaster-sells-rockettes-christmas-tickets-may/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/ticketmaster-sells-rockettes-christmas-tickets-may/#commentsFiled under: , ,

the Rockettes
AP
For years, Grinches of assorted stripes have complained that the Christmas season has been inching its way backward through the calendar. Once upon a time, Christmas was barely visible before Dec. 1, when retailers would roll out the holly and wrapping paper. Then, it started swiping more territory, working its way back past Thanksgiving and into the middle days of November. Now, Halloween barely ends before the back rows at Target start filling with lights and ornaments, tinsel and tree toppers. Like it or not, Christmas is slowly sneaking up on you, gobbling up more and more of the year and reminding you ever earlier that you need to start worrying about wearing ugly sweaters and finding the perfect gift for Mom.

This year, though, it's not the usual suspects like Target and Walmart leading the charge to speed up the holiday calendar. Instead, the first Christmas culprit of 2013 is Ticketmaster, which seems to have decided that 2013's holiday season will begin not in November, October nor even September. No, this year, Ticketmaster is starting the clock in May, more than seven months before C-Day.

That's right: We're still closer to Christmas 2012 than to Christmas 2013, but Ticketmaster is already trying to gin up excitement for Santa's next ride.

Of course, Ticketmaster couldn't do it alone: To move Christmas season up to late spring, it needed an accomplice, a group so closely associated with the Yuletide season that it's beyond reproach. Santa and his elves are out, obviously, which left Ticketmaster only one choice: the Rockettes.

Sponsored Links
I first became aware of Ticketmaster's scheme last week, when the company sent me an emailed offer for discounted tickets to the annual Radio City Music Hall spectacular. Last year, my wife, daughter and I went to the show, ponying up $162 for three seats. Since I bought the tickets through Ticketmaster, the company grabbed my information and, presumably, decided to let me know that, this year, I could get a great deal -- if I bought my ticket seven months ahead of time.

Admittedly, the deal is pretty good: for a prime orchestra seat at 5 p.m. on a Friday in November, I would only have to pay $49, rather than the usual $78 -- a pretty impressive 37 percent discount. Add in the standard $14 Ticketmaster fee, and the price rises to $63. Then again, I'd still need to know what I'm doing on a Friday in early November -- a date that is still six months away.

The Rockettes' complicity in Ticketmaster's dastardly plan extends even beyond advertising in May: they have also begun pushing their Christmas shows earlier and earlier. In 2011, the "Spectacular" began on Nov. 10. A year later, the first show was on Nov. 9. This year, the Rockettes take the stage on Nov. 8 -- almost two months before Christmas Day. And the Christmas creep continues ...

Ticketmaster could not be reached for comment.

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>ChristmasRockettesSavingsswagbucksTicketmasterBruce WatsonMon, 20 May 2013 17:16:00 ESTBig Ticket Buffet(t): The World's Most Expensive Dinner Guestshttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/most-expensive-dinner-guests-charity-buffett-clinton/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/most-expensive-dinner-guests-charity-buffett-clinton/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/20/most-expensive-dinner-guests-charity-buffett-clinton/#commentsFiled under: , , , , ,

Warren Buffett dinner
Getty Images
How much is a lunch worth?

On June 7, the answer will become clear as Warren Buffett will place a meal -- and a few hours of his time -- on the auction block. For several years, the legendary investor has donated a lunch at New York's Smith and Wollensky steak house to the highest bidder, with proceeds from the auction going to the Glide Foundation, a charity that works with San Francisco's homeless. And, if recent trends continue, this year's auction will once again break a record.

Sponsored Links
Buffett's lunches are famously expensive: Since 2008, they have fetched a minimum of $1.6 million per meal, and last year's auction set a new record with a top bid of $3,456,789. Then again, while the prices seem astronomical, it isn't hard to see how they could prove profitable -- after all, who better to offer investing tips than the famed Oracle of Omaha?

When it comes to pricey dates, Buffett takes the cake, but he's hardly the only celebrity who can fetch a fortune for a few hours of his time. On the less expensive end of things, a meal with Minnesota Viking Chris Kluwe recently went for $4,050, and a dinner with teen heartthrob Josh Hutcherson went for a mere $2,250 -- a bargain for some deep-pocketed fan of The Hunger Games. And, like Buffett, Kluwe and Hutcherson have used their time to support their favorite causes: Hutcherson's time went to help Abby Marsh, a young woman who was injured in a car accident, while Kluwe's meal raised money for Vote No, a group that fought against Minnesota's anti-gay marriage amendment.

But if Hutcherson and Kluwe represent relative bargains, who takes the upper end? Charitybuzz, a New York-based fundraising group, regularly auctions off dinners with some of the country's highest rollers. Here are their top-earning meal companions:

Gallery: Big Ticket Buffet(t): The Most Expensive Dinners

Tim CookBill ClintonMichael BloombergRupert MurdochGeorge Clooney


Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>Alan GreenspanauctionsBill ClintoncharityChris KluweClinton FoundationElton JohnEmeril LagasseGeorge ClooneyGlide FoundationGlobal Poverty ProjectJosh HutchersonMichael BloombergRobert F. KennedyRupert MurdochTim CookWarren BuffettBruce WatsonMon, 20 May 2013 12:34:00 ESTGet the Lead Out: Lipsticks That Won't Hurt Your Pocketbook Or Your Healthhttp://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/18/safe-lipsticks-lead-poisoning/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/18/safe-lipsticks-lead-poisoning/http://www.dailyfinance.com/2013/05/18/safe-lipsticks-lead-poisoning/#commentsFiled under: , , ,

shopping lipstick - trying on new lipstick
Alamy
When you think of lead poisoning, the first thing that comes to mind is probably peeling paint. Yet, for a lot of women, the biggest lead danger is right under their noses. Lipstick, the definitive American cosmetic, may also be one of the most dangerous: As a recent Mother Jones article pointed out, lipsticks routinely contain toxic ingredients like cadmium, chromium, aluminum and, worst of all, lead.

While simply putting lipstick on isn't dangerous, the fact is that most women also consume a fair bit of the waxy wonder. And, the more times during the day that women reapply lipstick, the more of those dangerous substances they are likely to ingest. In the case of some, the lead content can be bracing: Maybelline's Color Sensational in Pink Petal, the worst one on the market, contains a whopping 7.19 parts per million of lead. (That's 100 times more than any of the ones we recommend.)


Sponsored Links
For most minerals, like cadmium, aluminum, and so on, there are minimum acceptable amounts for consumption. Lead, on the other hand, is supposed to be completely avoided. In children, it can cause lasting brain damage; in adults, it can lead to a host of problems, from cramps to seizures all the way to death.

(To clarify: As worrisome as a grown woman's occasional consumption of lead-laden lipstick may be, the effects could be significantly worse for young children playing dress-up with mom's cosmetics.)

While most companies are closed-lipped about their secret cosmetics recipes, there are, thankfully, a few resources available for women who are looking to get the lead out. The Environmental Working Group's Skin Deep Database offers a breakdown of many top cosmetics, and the the FDA occasionally releases lists of which cosmetics have the most and least amounts of lead.

Unfortunately, many of the healthiest lipsticks are the most expensive. With that in mind, here are a few of our favorites from the most recent survey:

Gallery: Get the Lead Out: Lipsticks That Won't Hurt Your Pocketbook Or Your Health

1. Best Bargain: Iman Red Luxury Moisturizing Lipstick2. Clinique's Almost Lipstick, Black Honey3. M.A.C. Satin Red Lipstick4. M.A.C. Lady Danger5. Fashion Fair Earth Red

Bruce Watson is DailyFinance's Savings editor. You can reach him by e-mail at bruce.watson@teamaol.com, or follow him on Twitter at @bruce1971.

Permalink | Email this | Comments

]]>cliniquecosmeticsestee lauderhealthlead poisoninglipsticksavingBruce WatsonSat, 18 May 2013 05:00:00 EST