La Local Exemption Sales: Fill & Download for Free

There’s a documented shortage of at least 200,000 housing units in the Bay Area. Every 7 years California requires that every metro area in the state produce a housing element report known as a Regional Housing Needs Allocation The Association of Bay Area Governments went into 2007 having fallen far short in new housing permits. From 2007–2014 they under built by another 91,000 units. The 2015–2023 RHNA is not looking like much of an improvement. It calls for 188,000 new units. Even if all of those units get built by 2023 (they won’t) we’ll still be 9 years behind the population growth.Building that housing wouldn’t bring prices down to the level of, say, Houston but it would improve things dramatically. The problem is actually statewide. It’s at its extreme in the Bay but LA, San Diego, Sacramento, and even the cities in the Central Valley have housing prices way out of sync with local wages.Flooding the market with new houses would help but the housing shortage has many roots - most of which can and should be trimmed:DemandThe weather is great and there are a lot of good paying jobs. To a certain extent, housing costs will always be on the high side.TopographyParticularly in the Bay Area there’s not a whole lot of flat land to build on. Steep slopes are typically off limits because we have earthquakes and lots of hillsides that are prone to mudslides during the winter rains. Lots of flat land near the Bay isn’t buildable, again because of earthquakes, the areas are prone to soil liquefaction.RegulationsCEQA in particular needed to be reformed 30 years ago and it still makes it difficult to build housing and especially to build dense housing. It also makes it easy for people to sue to block housing from being built. Over the last year there has been a lot of talk about reforming this and there are currently two bills in the legislature. We’ll see what happens on that front. There’s nothing wrong with environmental regulations. Plenty of other states have them. CEQA makes the building environment in the state unpredictable. Large projects can take 15 years to get through the pipeline. This adds significantly to the costs that get passed on to homebuyers and renters and also throttles the supply of new housing.ActivistsThe anti-tax crowd on the right brought us Prop 13. This ballot measure limited property tax hikes while a person was in their home and backloaded the taxes to the sale. It also exempted homeowners from paying increased taxes if they passed their home on to their kids. This means a smaller inventory of existing homes for sale (when compared to other metro areas). Since long time homeowners are paying very low taxes compared to the value of their homes it pushes the tax burden onto first-time home buyers and anyone else trying to move or otherwise enter the CA housing market.The lefty activists brought us rent control. It protects tenants as long as they stay in their unit. This means that you can have a longtime renter paying $700/mo while their neighbors in an identical apartment are paying $2100. This means that a lot of people would rather sit in traffic for 3 hours a day than expose themselves to the rental market by trying to move closer to work. It also pushes the rent burden onto people trying to enter the local rental market (ie, new renters pay more so that longtime renters can pay less).This was caused, quite obviously, by a lack of homebuilding but the housing situation here has been made much worse by other local problems like rent control, Prop 13, and an appalling lack of investment in transportation infrastructure.NIMBYs and BANANAsThere are some stereotypes that most of the rest of the country has about California and, for the most part, they’re true. There’s a certain aloof/selfish/entitled attitude among a large portion of the population in the Bay Area. People think they have a right to live in sprawling, single story neighborhoods in a metro area of 8 million people yet still live close to downtown and be able to drive wherever, whenever, without any traffic. A lot of long time homeowners also think they have a right to prohibit dense housing not just in their neighborhoods but also on vacant land or on land zoned commercial. We see this most vehemently in places like Berkeley where some people are freaking out over proposals for mid-rise housing on the parking lots of the North Berkeley BART station. We see it in Alameda with the lawsuits against development at the former Naval Air Station. We see it in Oakland where people literally set fire to new construction going up on old, downtown parking lots. This sort of thing is also a problem in the suburbs of Boston and NYC. It’s a whole other level in the Bay Area and CEQA gives them much sharper teeth.TransportationCalifornia hitched its development wagon to cars and freeways a long time ago. That strategy is fine in a metro area the size of Sacramento. It doesn’t work in a place the size of LA or the Bay Area. It works even less in a heavily urbanized state like CA. LA has the Metrolink, which is helpful, but it’s plagued by lack of frequent service and by the fact that employment in Southern California is very dispersed. LA is building new subways and light rail like crazy but it can take decades to really feel their impact.The Bay Area started building great transit in the early 1970s but 10 years later quit and haven’t added any new capacity since. More and more people are commuting from places like Tracy, Stockton, the Delta, Vacaville, Gilroy, etc. and all but a few of these have commuter rail connections to Oakland or San Jose let alone San Francisco. Essentially, the lack of a good commuter rail network in the Bay Area means means that housing development can’t stretch out to the cheaper land on the other side of the hills.

Most American gun owners do not believe there is an active conspiracy to take away all privately owned firearms. We do believe that banning of private gun ownership (and eventual confiscation) is a genuine desire of many in the anti-gun left, including their most senior political leaders. We believe this because they have stated so on many occasions"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97."If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, CNN Crossfire, 12/9/93."Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use." - Rep. Bobby Rush, Chicago Tribune, 12/5/99."We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93."If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98."We can't be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights or ordinary Americans to own firearms ... that we are unable to think about reality." - President Bill Clinton, March 1, 1993."We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93."Mr. President, what is going on in this country? Does going to school mean exposure to handguns and to death? As you know, my position is we should ban all handguns, get rid of them, no manufacture, no sale, no importation, no transportation, no possession of a handgun. There are 66 million handguns in the United States of America today, with 2 million being added every year." - Senator John H. Chafee, (R-RI), 6/11/92."Mr. speaker, we must take swift and strong action if we are to rescue the next generation from the rising of tide armed violence. That is why today I am introducing the Handgun Control Act of 1992. This legislation would outlaw the possession, importation, transfer or manufacture of a handgun except for use by public agencies, individuals who can demonstrate to their local police chief that they need a gun because of threat to their life or the life of a family member, licensed guard services, licensed pistol clubs which keep the weapons securely on premises, licensed manufacturers and licensed gun dealers." - Rep. Stephen J. Solarz, 8/12/92."Indeed, that the Second Amendment poses no barrier to strong gun laws is perhaps the most well-settled proposition in American constitutional law. Yet the incantation of this phantom right continues to pervade Congressional debate." - Erwin N. Griswold, Solicitor General, Nixon Administration (Washington Post, 11/4/90)Journalists/Media:"My personal opinion is that guns kill people." - Sam Donaldson, ABC News Primetime Live, 2/22/90."We will never fully solve our nation's horrific problem of gun violence unless we ban the manufacture and sale of handguns and semi-automatic assault weapons." - USA Today, Dec. 29, 1993."Twenty years ago, I asked Richard Nixon what he thought of gun control. His on-the-record reply: 'Guns are an abomination.' Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles. - William Safire, LA Daily News, 6/15/99."Jonesboro, Arkansas; Edinboro, Pennsylvania; Fayetteville, Tennessee; Springfield, Oregon -- all towns that live in infamy because a troubled teenager with access to a deadly gun went on a killing spree. There are no panaceas to stop such violence but there are too many guns and too many teenagers have too easy access to them. It is an outrage to deny that as too many politicians in the back pocket of the National Rifle Association are too wont to do." - CNN Capital Gang, 5/23/98."Ultimately, a civilized society must disarm its citizenry if it is to have a modicum of domestic tranquility of the kind enjoyed by sister democracies such as Canada and Britain. Given the frontier history and individualist ideology of the United States, however, this will not come easily." - Charles Krauthammer, columnist, "Disarm the Citizenry"."We are inclined to think that every firearm in the hands of anyone who is not a law enforcement officer constitutes an incitement to violence. Let's come to our senses before the whole country starts shooting itself up on all its Main Streets in a delirious kind of High Noon." - Washington Post, 8/19/65."By a curiosity of evolution, every human skull harbors a prehistoric vestige: a reptilian brain. This atavism, like a hand grenade cushioned in the more civilized surrounding cortex, is the dark hive where many of mankind's primitive impulses originate. To go partners with that throwback, Americans have carried out of their own history another curiosity that evolution forgot to discard as the country changed from a sparsely populated, underpoliced agrarian society to a modern industrial civilization. That vestige is the gun - most notoriously the handgun, an anachronistic tool still much in use." - Time, 4/13/81."As you probably know by now, Time's editors, in the April 13 issue, took a strong position in support of an outright ban on handguns for private use." - Time Magazine, Letter to NRA, 4/24/81."The only way to discourage the gun culture is to remove the guns from the hands and shoulders of people who are not in the law enforcement business." - New York Times, 9/24/75."Why should America adopt a policy of near-zero tolerance for private gun ownership? Because it's the only alternative to the present insanity. Without both strict limits on access to new weapons and aggressive efforts to reduce the supply of existing weapons, no one can be safer." - Editorial, Los Angeles Times, 12/28/93."No presidential candidate has yet come out for the most effective proposal to check the terror of gunfire: a ban on the general sale, manufacture and ownership of handguns as well as assault-style weapons." - Guns Along the Campaign Trail, Washington Post, 7/19/99."There is no reason for anyone in the country, for anyone except a police officer or a military person, to buy, to own, to have, to use, a handgun. I used to think handguns could be controlled by laws about registration, by laws requiring waiting periods for purchasers, by laws making sellers check out the past of buyers. I think the only way to control handgun use in this country is to prohibit the guns." - Michael Gartner, President, NBC News, in USA Today, 1/16/92."Whatever is being proposed is way too namby-pamby. I mean, for example, we're talking about limiting people to one gun purchase, or handgun purchase a month. Why not just ban the ownership of handguns when nobody needs one? Why not just ban semi-automatic rifles? Nobody needs one." - Jack E. White, Time national correspondent, Washington Times, 5/8/99."The great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment ... I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely - the handguns, the semis and the automatics." - Roger Rosenblatt, Time Magazine, 8/9/99."I don't understand why we're piddling around. We should talk about getting rid of guns in this country." - Juan Williams, Washington Post, on Fox News Sunday, 5/23/99."Repealing the Second Amendment is no cause for the faint-hearted, but it remains the only way for liberals to trigger an honest debate on the future of our bullet-plagued society. So what if anti-gun advocates have to devote the next 15-20 years to the struggle? The cause is worth the political pain. Failing to take bold action condemns all of us to spend our lives cringing in terror every time we hear a car backfire." - Walter Shapiro, USA Today columnist, 9/17/99."Get rid of the guns. We had the Second Amendment that said you have the right to bear arms. I haven't seen the British really coming by my house looking for it. And besides, the right to bear arms is not an absolute right anyway, as New York's Sullivan Law proves. We talk about ourselves as a violent society, and some of that is right and some of it is claptrap. But I think if you took away the guns, and I mean really take away the guns, not what Congress is doing now, you would see that violent society diminish considerably." - Roger Rosenblatt, PBS NewsHour essayist, 5/20/99.Organizations:"We urge passage of federal legislation - and meanwhile, in its absence, the partial remedy of state law - to prohibit, with few and narrowly drawn exceptions, the private ownership and possession of handguns, much the way existing laws prohibit machine guns, grenades and cannons." - ACLU Board of Directors, adopted September, 1976."The Union agrees with the Supreme Court's longstanding interpretation of the Second Amendment that the individual's right to keep and bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a 'well-regulated militia'. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected." - ACLU policy statement #47 (1986)."The League, therefore, supports a ban on the further manufacture, sale, transportation and importation for private ownership of handguns and their parts." - League of Women Voters of Illinois Gun Control Position-in-Brief."One tenet of the National Rifle Association's faith has always been that handgun controls do little to stop criminals from obtaining handguns. For once, the NRA is right and America's leading handgun control organization is wrong. Criminals don't buy handguns in gun stores. That's why they are criminals." - Josh Sugarman, Executive Director, Violence Policy Center, June 1987."I am one who believes that as a first step the U.S. should move expeditiously to disarm the civilian population, other than the police and security officers, of all handguns, pistols and revolvers ... no one should have a right to anonymous ownership or use of a gun." - Dean Morris, Director, LEAA."Firearms are currently exempt from the health and safety laws that apply to every other consumer product in America, from toasters to teddy bears. Applying those same standards to guns is the real key to reducing firearm death and injury in America. Under these standards, handguns would be banned because of their high risk and low utility." - Violence Policy Center, 3/16/99.Others:"[T]he Second Amendment does not confer an individual right to own or possess arms." - U.S. 9th District Court of Appeals, Silveira v Lockyer, 12/5/02"[The] National Rifle Association is always arguing that the Second Amendment determines the right to bear arms. But I think it really is the people's right to bear arms in a militia. The NRA thinks it protects their right to have Teflon-coated bullets. But that's not the original understanding. - Robert H. Bork, former Federal Appeals Court Judge (Distinguished Lecture Series, UC Irvine, 3/14/89)"Since the Second Amendment ... applies only to the right of the State to maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm." - U.S. v Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)"There is no reason why all pistols should not be barred to everyone except the police." - Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall, Adams v. Williams, 1972 (dissent)"Until America, door to door, takes every handgun, this is what you're gonna have. It's pathetic. It really is pathetic. It's sad. We're living in the Dark Ages." - Sylvester Stallone."To me, the only reason for guns in civilian hands is for sporting purposes." - Sarah Brady, Tampa Tribune, 10/21/93."My own view on gun control is simple. I hate guns and I cannot imagine why anyone would want to own one. If I had my way, guns for sport would be registered, and all other guns, would be banned." - Deborah Prothrow-Stith, Dean of the Harvard School of Public Health."Mutual protection should be the aim of citizens, not individual self-protection. Until we are willing to outlaw the very existence or manufacture of civilian handguns we have no right to call ourselves citizens or consider our behavior even minimally civil." - Garry Wills, historian/writer, John Lennon's war, Chi. Sun-times, 12/12/80."We are beyond the stage of restrictive licensing and uniform laws. We are at the point in time and terror when nothing short of a strong uniform policy of domestic disarmament will alleviate the danger which is crystal clear and perilously present. Let us take the guns away from the people. Exemptions should be limited to the military, the police and those licensed for good and sufficient reasons." - Patrick V. Murphy, NYC Police Commissioner, 12/7/70."I would have preferred to invent something which helps people and makes life easier for farmers. A lawnmower, for example." - Mikhail Kalashnikov, 82, inventor of the Kalashnikov assault rifle."Sorry, it's 1999. We have had enough as a nation. You are not allowed to own a gun, and if you do own a gun I think you should go to prison." - Rosie O'Donnell, talk show host."I believe, very strongly, that handguns should be banned and that there should be stringent, effective control of other firearms." - William Buchmeyer, Judge, Patterson v Gesellschaft, 1206 F. Supp. 1206, 1216 (N.D. Tex. 1985)."Guns are evil." - Natalie Merchant, 10,000 Maniacs Concert, 1993."The existence of a gun factory is an absurd. That's the interruption of Mankind's evolution. It interrupts the evolution of Mankind. It's an absurd Man making firearms." - Helio Luz, former Chief of Police, Rio de Janeiro, 3/17/1997."Guns and violence -- an American dyad. The US has more firearms per capita in civilian hands than any other country in the world. Those opposing gun control say, "Guns don't kill people, people do." But people with guns kill and maim other people MORE OFTEN, MORE QUICKLY, and MORE EFFICIENTLY than people using any other means. To me and just about every pediatrician I know, the answer to preventing children using or being shot by guns is to KEEP CHILDREN AND GUNS APART." - Dr. Marilyn Heins, M.D. F.A.A.P."I have the right, when navigating the streets of Philadelphia - thoroughfares supported by my taxes - to drive, walk, or ride Septa unmolested by criminals carrying handguns. The streets of Philadelphia belong to the citizens, and we would all be safer if handguns were not allowed in these public spaces. The collective rights of the community to live free of widespread handgun violence outweighs the rights of individuals to carry defensive handguns against unknown enemies. The idea that disallowing handguns in public spaces will lead to a generalized loss of freedom is a fiction created by the gun industry out of economic necessity." - Kip Leitner, Philadelphia Enquirer, 2/26/99So you see, they have made no secret of their agenda. As gun owners, we take them at their word.

Question asked:Will people in the EU and Canada really stop buying American goods because of the tariffs?I can’t speak for the people living in the European Union, but as a Canadian, I’ve already stopped buying American-produced goods (which sucks, because I really love Jack Daniels). I’ve also cancelled plans to vacation in the US, and put a hiatus on professional travel to the US. I’ve spoken to friends in America about this, and they understand that it isn’t personal… I’m not going after everyday Americans with my actions—but as an individual person who’s completely unimportant when it comes to international politics, the only tool that I have at my disposal is how I choose to empty my wallet. Until this idiocy is resolved equitably for both sovereign nations, very little of my hard-earned income will be spent in the United States.I’m not delusional; I know that this little act of protest won’t change a thing, nor would it if every single Canadian acted in the same manner as I am. The US economy isn’t dependent on Canada… not by a long shot. However, it’s the principle that drives me. Some actions and some insults simply can’t go unanswered, and I refuse to just roll over and take it in stride like Canadians usually do. Many of my compatriots feel the same. It wouldn’t surprise me to learn that there are a considerable number of people in the European Union who feel similarly, given how Trump has behaved towards those governments and their leaders since taking office.It bothers me that the pretext for the trade actions taken against Canada involves classifying the goods under tariff that we provide to the USA as a national security threat (steel and aluminum for now, perhaps automobiles soon). That same steel and aluminum is at least partly used in the production of armoured vehicles for the US Armed Forces. But it’s a national security threat? Come on, now. You’re setting off my bullshit detector. If the domestic US industry could produce enough steel and aluminum to meet domestic demand, it would. All that this tariff will accomplish is to increase prices for goods and infrastructure in the USA.It bothers me that government leadership in America (including Congress and the Senate) accepts Trump’s reasoning and doesn’t push back… isn’t trade supposed to be the domain of Congress (by the people, of the people, for the people?). Don’t any of the elected representatives down there have enough of a backbone to tell Trump he’s being a fucking toddler, and that shafting your closest allies will eventually cause them to walk away completely? The mood amongst ordinary people in Canada is increasingly souring on the United States, with many of us asking why we should go to bat for the USA when this is how we’re going to be treated after we’ve stepped to the best of our ability in times of need for the last hundred years or so. A hundred years of friendship and strong bilateral relations mean nothing to the current US administration. A hundred years. Think about that for a minute. Trump recently took to Twitter and said that he wants to inflict severe economic pain on the people of Canada. Seriously, wtf? Can you really blame us for being pissed off enough to stop giving you our money?It bothers me even more that no one seems to be calling Trump on his bullshit.I’ve read about him spouting variations on ‘Canada is just a complicit waypoint for cheap steel from China, unfairly passed off as Canadian product and dumped into the USA.’ How so? Steel and aluminum exported to the United States from Canada is produced primarily in Quebec and Ontario (provinces within Canada). Anything imported from Asia into Canada and re-sold to the United States would still carry a Made in [Asian Country] designation due to the origin rules of the global trading system. To say that Canadian companies are selling “cheap Chinese steel” to American companies and passing it off as Canadian steel means one of two things… either Trump fundamentally doesn’t understand how trade works, or Trump thinks that one of the USA’s closest allies is filled with hucksters who are only out to stick it to hardworking Americans. The former is alarming (a US President who doesn’t understand the basics of mercantile trade!!) and the latter is downright insulting (and alarming, since there isn’t the remotest basis in truth for the claim). I can assure you, we have better things to do than plot and scheme on how to cheat our strategic partners and friends. It wouldn’t get us anywhere in the long run, and the fabric of our society (and foreign policy) is based on collaboration… not zero sum tomfoolery.Trump seems to say at every turn that Canada has taken advantage of the US and that they’ve been treated unfairly for decades. That we’ve gotten wealthy by cheating America. Lately, his Press Secretary has also picked up the ball and fluffs that garbage around like it’s gospel. Again, how so? I’m at a loss to fathom how a country one-tenth the population and less than one-tenth the GDP of the USA can in any way, shape, or form fundamentally hurt the economy of the United States if it was trying to… and we’re not trying to! What is it, softwood lumber? Well, we have a lot of it, and we have a lot of wide-open land. It’s cheaper for us to produce lumber than it is for you. Every WTO arbitration[1][1][1][1] on the subject has upheld our position on the substantive points… so why the fuck are we still talking about it? The outcome of the most recent 20% tariff slapped on softwood lumber by the Trump administration is that the average home in the USA now costs $9,000 more to buy, according to the US National Association of Homebuilders[2][2][2][2]. America, why aren’t you mad as hell about this? Some dude in Washington who promised to drain the swamp just waved his orange hand and yanked nine grand out of your bank account! And I’m sorry, we like you, but not enough to give you a 20% discount purely out of sympathy that your government is dutifully screwing the people who elected its leadership in fulfillment of their own interests. You did hear that Ivanka Trump was granted a series of trademarks in China right before pops vowed to exempt ZTE from punitive actions for their continued, illegal sales of restricted technology to North Korea and Iran, right?[3][3][3][3] Coincidence? Possible. But when you smell fertilizer, it’s far more likely that you’re in a stable than it is you’re standing in a perfume factory.Is it dairy, and the “270% tax”? (PS, a tariff isn’t a tax).Yep, we assess heavy tariffs on a range of imported dairy goods… from every country, not just the United States. The reason behind that is really, really simple… it’s in our national interest to have dairy goods produced locally, and to stabilize prices so that dairy farmers can earn a living and support their families (though it’s still not an easy life for them). It’s not personal, and it has shit all to do with wanting to be unfair to you. We’re not sitting around, gleefully counting up billions of dollars in milk profits a-la-Scrooge McDuck, and laughing about how we shaft rural American farmers for sport. That’s just not a scenario that’s even remotely attached to reality. Wisconsin produces 3.5 billion gallons of milk a year[4][4][4][4]. The 36 million people who live in Canada consumed about 0.6 billion gallons of milk in 2017 (66.68L per person).[5][5][5][5] Wisconsin produces almost six times more milk than our entire country consumes. Unfair trade isn’t your root problem here, overproduction and wastage is… the avoidance of which is exactly why we developed the supply management system in the first place. The domestic supply in Canada produces just enough to meet the domestic demand (in theory). Did you know that there are a lot of dairy products that can be imported, duty-free? Eggs, cheeses, higher-fat cream for starters.[6][6][6][6] These are items that we can’t produce enough of domestically to meet demand. It’s mostly the heavily processed dairy products and cheap, low-quality milk that aren’t wanted here. Even if these duties went away overnight—it would be to the benefit of the European Union and New Zealand far more than the United States. The use of growth hormones in dairy production is illegal in Canada[7][7][7][7]; so the milk from any dairy cow that was administered BST or rBGH would be ineligible for import, under existing trade agreements (though this will change slightly with TPP, which Trump withdrew the USA from in a hissy fit). Since the EU and NZ have compatible health regulations, their production practices wouldn’t have to be modified for the Canadian market… whereas a dairy farmer wanting to sell milk into the Canadian market would have to keep a separate herd and production processes to produce milk products free of growth hormones and with strict limits on antibiotics. And since the entire country consumes 1/6th the supply produced by a single US state… would it really be worth it?Hmm, that was a long answer. I guess this subject pisses me off more than I thought. For the love of god… talk some sense into your leadership, people of America. I hate being mad in your general direction. I just want to go back to when we were buds and felt like we could count on each other for the important things.Footnotes[1] dispute settlement - chronological list of disputes cases[1] dispute settlement - chronological list of disputes cases[1] dispute settlement - chronological list of disputes cases[1] dispute settlement - chronological list of disputes cases[2] Trump's lumber tariffs make home ownership too expensive for more than a million Americans | CBC News[2] Trump's lumber tariffs make home ownership too expensive for more than a million Americans | CBC News[2] Trump's lumber tariffs make home ownership too expensive for more than a million Americans | CBC News[2] Trump's lumber tariffs make home ownership too expensive for more than a million Americans | CBC News[3] Ivanka Trump won China trademarks days before her father's reversal on ZTE[3] Ivanka Trump won China trademarks days before her father's reversal on ZTE[3] Ivanka Trump won China trademarks days before her father's reversal on ZTE[3] Ivanka Trump won China trademarks days before her father's reversal on ZTE[4] Fast facts on Wisconsin's dairy industry[4] Fast facts on Wisconsin's dairy industry[4] Fast facts on Wisconsin's dairy industry[4] Fast facts on Wisconsin's dairy industry[5] Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Cream[5] Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Cream[5] Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Cream[5] Per Capita Consumption of Milk and Cream[6] Chapter 4 - T2018[6] Chapter 4 - T2018[6] Chapter 4 - T2018[6] Chapter 4 - T2018[7] Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST)[7] Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST)[7] Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST)[7] Recombinant Bovine Somatotropin (rbST)