Tax hikes, improving economy bode well for state budget









SACRAMENTO — Although a modest deficit will linger into next year, California's finances are poised for marked improvement as the state reaps the benefits of newly approved taxes and the economy continues to recover, the Legislature's top budget advisor said Wednesday.

Schools can expect more money eventually, and the state may even start to see surpluses, according to Legislative Analyst Mac Taylor, who provides nonpartisan counsel to lawmakers. He said a healthier budget should then allow officials to turn their attention to California's other chronic financial issues, such as an unstable tax base and an expensive debt burden.

In a report released Wednesday, his office estimates that state officials will need to close a $1.9-billion budget gap in the spending plan they pass next summer, about one-eighth of the problem they faced this year. The gap is smaller than it might have been because state officials, as part of a regular process, recalculated how much tax revenue arrived in recent years, resulting in a $1.4-billion boost.





A big chunk of the remaining deficit is due to the lagging stock price of Facebook, which went public this year. The analyst's office said there would be $626 million less in tax revenue than expected from the initial public offering. The state also is saving far less from closing redevelopment agencies than officials had projected.

Nonetheless, Gov. Jerry Brown hailed the analyst's forecast.

"This report validates the hard work the state has done to cut its deficit and balance its budget over the long term," he said in a statement. "California is now on the path for a fair and sustainable budget as long as we continue to exercise fiscal discipline and pay down debt."

Chipping away at California's most intractable budget problems has been Brown's primary goal since beginning his second tour of duty in Sacramento in 2010.

On election day last week, voters approved Proposition 30, the governor's plan to temporarily raise the sales tax and income taxes on high earners, providing an estimated $6 billion annually for state coffers. Voters also passed Proposition 39, which changes the corporate tax code to raise an estimated $1 billion a year for the general fund and clean energy projects.

Within six years, the report said, California could find itself with a $9-billion surplus, a stark turnaround after many years of severe budget deficits. But continuing financial challenges could quickly eat up any extra money.

Taylor said surplus dollars may be used to shore up the underfunded public pension system or pay back more debt. "We still have a lot of catching up to do," he said.

There will also be intense pressure from activists to restore funding to social services cut during many budget crises.

"We're turning the corner," said Chris Hoene, executive director of the California Budget Project in Sacramento, a think tank that advocates for low-income families. "We should approach the budget with some cautious optimism."

Despite the improved financial outlook, Taylor said the state will probably burn through its existing reserve of nearly $1 billion and end up with a nearly $1-billion deficit by the end of the current fiscal year.

Most of the problem, he said, is the lack of savings from dissolving redevelopment agencies. The state may reap only $1.4 billion, he said, less than half of the Brown administration's estimate.

Facebook, once expected to provide California with a tax windfall, has also been a disappointment. Brown administration officials expected to reap $1.9 billion in taxes by the end of the current fiscal year from the company's initial public offering, but the report issued Wednesday said they should count on only $1.25 billion.

Kim Rueben, a senior fellow at the nonpartisan Tax Policy Center in Washington, D.C., said California needs to be more careful when dealing with potential tax windfalls like Facebook, perhaps routing the money to a separate reserve fund.

"You don't want it to be in your day-to-day budget," she said.

chris.megerian@latimes.com





Read More..

'Shirtless' FBI Agent Who Hunted Petraeus Also Helped Stop LA Bombing



The FBI agent responsible for the downfall of two of the military’s most respected generals helped stop a terrorist from bombing Los Angeles International Airport and shot a man who attacked him with a knife at the gates of a military base. And he kicked off an investigation that not only upended Washington, it has many wondering if the FBI exceeded its authority.


Meet Frederick W. Humphries II — finally. Humphries, identified by The New York Times, is the mystery Florida-based FBI agent central to the ongoing scandal that brought down CIA Director David Petraeus and threatens the career of the Afghanistan war commander. At nearly every key moment in the tawdry sex scandal, Humphries has been there, lurking in the shadows, sometimes without his shirt on. No wonder colleagues interviewed by the Times described him as “obsessive.” Even before anyone knew who he was, someone set up a parody Twitter account for him, @shirtlessFBIguy.


In 1999, Humphries used his French language skills to interrogate a Francophone suspect. And that helped the Bureau find and stop Ahmed Ressam from bombing LAX airport in what would come to be known as the Millennium Plot, according to a Seattle Times piece. Described as “wiry [and] high-energy,” the former Army officer unraveled the cover story of a member of the Millennium Plot by calling bull on the operative’s fake Quebecois accent. Eleven years later, Humphries would shoot and kill a “disturbed knife-wielding man” who attacked him at the gates of MacDill Air Force Base in Tampa.


Humphries knew Tampa socialite Jill Kelley, an unofficial “ambassador” between Tampa and MacDill, home of U.S. Central Command, run in 2010 and 2011 by Petraeus and Gen. John Allen, now the commander of the Afghanistan war. When Kelley started receiving harassing e-mails this summer, Kelley asked her FBI friend Humphries to look into it. Humphries agreed, but soon found himself taken off the case, according to the Times. That would prove to be a fateful move.



The FBI has broad authorities over cyber-stalking investigations. “When something of this nature comes to our attention,” spokesman Paul Bresson tells Danger Room, “we work in close coordination with prosecutors to evaluate the facts and circumstances with respect to jurisdiction and potential violations of federal law.”


Not everyone is buying that the FBI would normally take up the case of a socialite receiving unwanted, nasty e-mails. “This is highly irregular. Highly, highly irregular. With a case of e-mail harassment, we’d normally say: we’re kind of busy, contact your local police,” a former federal prosecutor tells Danger Room. “You know that old cliche ‘let’s not make a federal case out of it?’ Well, in this case, it rings true.”


In any case, the feds did make a federal case out of it — just without Humphries. But Humphries didn’t let the case go. He sent shirtless pictures of himself to Kelley, something a lawyer for a law-enforcement guild who spoke with Humphries described to the Times as a “joke” that the national media have misunderstood. Still, his friends characterized him as “passionate” and “kind of an obsessive type.” It showed.


Humphries did not take kindly to being removed from a case he kickstarted. Evidently, he knew that the FBI expanded the case from cyber-harassment to one determining whether Paula Broadwell, Petraeus’ mistress who harassed Kelley, received classified information from Petraeus. Humphries was convinced there was a Bureau cover-up to protect Obama, and in late October went to Rep. Dave Reichert, a Washington state Republican with whom Reichert had worked previously. Reichert — who would not respond to Danger Room’s queries — took Humphries to Rep. Eric Cantor, the GOP majority leader, on October 27.


Cantor and his staff met with Humphries shortly after Reichert made the introduction. But they did not know what his motivations were. Nor could they judge Humphries’ credibility. Worse, they had no idea the FBI had Petraeus under investigation in the first place. After conferencing, they decided the prudent thing to do was to take the information from the investigation to FBI Director Robert Mueller’s office. They did so on October 31, around the same time that FBI agents interviewed Petraeus and reportedly told him he was not under suspicion of leaking classified information.


A week later, on November 6 — election day — Mueller informed James Clapper, the director of national intelligence and Petraeus’ boss, of the investigation. The House Judiciary Committee has written to Mueller to determine, among other things, why Mueller waited a week, and why he informed neither the relevant congressional oversight committees or the White House. (Mueller on Wednesday briefed the leaders of the House and Senate intelligence committees.) But Clapper essentially sealed Petraeus’ fate, urging him to deliver the resignation from the CIA that ultimately came on Friday.


There are questions about whether the FBI has exceeded its bounds in the case Humphries launched. While the FBI has wide latitude to investigate potential leaks of classified intelligence — the focus of the ongoing inquiry into Broadwell that brought Petraeus down — it is far less clear what authority the FBI had to give the Pentagon flirtatious emails between Allen and Kelley that came to agents’ attention in the course of that inquiry.


The Pentagon, whose inspector general is now investigating Allen, says there is no evidence Allen gave Kelley classified material or otherwise compromised national security. Under the Uniformed Code of Military Justice, adultery is a crime. But a Defense official on Tuesday told reporters that Allen denies cheating on his wife, and the emails contain some “flirtatious” exchanges between the two. Yet while the so-called “Plain Sight Doctrine” holds that investigators can pursue evidence of a crime that they encounter in an unrelated investigation, flirtation is not evidence of adultery.


While many of the facts of Allen’s case have yet to be determined, some legal experts wonder if the FBI was required to ignore the emails between Allen and Kelley.


“Whether the supposed basis for the investigation was cyber-harassment, disclosure of classified information, or the vulnerability of the CIA chief to blackmailing, it’s difficult to see how a military commander’s flirtatious emails are relevant,” says Rachel Levinson-Waldman, a lawyer who studies information sharing between national-security agencies at New York University’s Brennan Center for Justice. In such a case, the FBI is usually required to “minimize” — that is, ignore or destroy — information on unrelated parties that it inadvertently collected. In practice, though, Levinson-Waldman cautions, FBI officials have strong incentives to hold on to such material, for fear of jeopardizing potential future investigations.


The FBI, argues the Electronic Frontier Foundation’s Kurt Opsahl, appears to have engaged in “a series of stretches,” to get from investigating Broadwell to turning over Allen’s communications with Kelley to the Defense Department. “I don’t see how that email [traffic] is necessary or how there’s any kind of probable cause to believe there’s any link to the crimes the FBI was investigating,” Opsahl says.


In a statement released by his military lawyer late Wednesday, Allen vowed “to fully cooperate with the Inspector General Investigators” while his nomination to be NATO commander is officially on hold. There’s a possibility that Allen will be vindicated. But if he’s not, he has overzealous FBI investigators to thank — including Humphries, who started it all.


– additional reporting by Noah Shachtman


Read More..

BAFTA Shifts Corporate Sponsors for Film Awards
















LOS ANGELES (TheWrap.com) – You can’t buy awards, but when it comes to the BAFTAs you can certainly sponsor them.


The British Academy of Film and Television is switching up its corporate partners for its annual film awards ceremony. That means it’s out with telecom company Orange, and in with broadband network EE.













The overhaul will require some rechristening of BAFTA‘s hardware. After 15 years with Orange in the title, the ceremony will now be known as the EE British Academy Film Awards. Moreover, its award for best newcomer will now be named the EE Rising Star Award.


The BAFTAs are the U.K. equivalent of the Oscars. EE is a sister company of Orange, so the shakeup is not seismic.


The EE British Academy Film Awards will be broadcast on the BBC on February 10, 2013 and will be hosted by satirist Stephen Fry.


TV News Headlines – Yahoo! News



Read More..

F.D.A. Seeks More Control Over Drug Compounders


Susan Walsh/Associated Press


Barry Cadden, chief pharmacist for the company that made the contaminated drugs, at a Congressional hearing on Wednesday.







WASHINGTON — The commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration on Wednesday called on Congress to empower the agency to better police compounding pharmacies like the one at the center of a national meningitis outbreak. But Republican lawmakers pushed back, arguing that the agency has enough authority, leaving it unclear whether the House would support efforts to increase oversight.




In a contentious hearing of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the commissioner, Dr. Margaret Hamburg, testified that a tangle of conflicting court decisions and the lack of a clear definition of compounding in the law had limited the agency’s ability to build a case against compounding pharmacies that fail to meet basic safety standards.


“There is an enormous lack of clarity, and we should seize this opportunity to address it,” Dr. Hamburg said.


In many cases, such pharmacies are not required to give investigators access to their books, agency officials say. Federal regulators sometimes have to appeal to local courts to gain access to the pharmacies or their records, although, by law, large drug manufacturers must submit to regular inspections. Compounding pharmacies are now regulated primarily by the states.


Dr. Hamburg’s remarks signaled that the Obama administration will press for new legislation in response to the meningitis outbreak, which was caused by contaminated pain medication made by a compounding pharmacy in Massachusetts. So far, 461 people have fallen ill, and 32 of them have died.


The central question is whether the F.D.A. has enough power to crack down on large-scale compounding companies that behave more like drug manufactures than the neighborhood pharmacies that mix medicines for individual patients — the traditional purview of compounders.


Republicans on the committee said the outbreak appeared to have been preventable under existing regulations.  


“After a tragedy like this, the first question we all ask is, ‘Could this have been prevented?’ ” said Representative Cliff Stearns, Republican of Florida, who is chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. After reviewing documents, he said, “The answer appears to be yes.”


The agency’s critics maintain that the 1938 Food Drug and Cosmetic Act provides it with plenty of authority, but that the F.D.A. failed to use it to shut down the Massachusetts pharmacy, the New England Compounding Center.  


Barry Cadden, the chief pharmacist at the company, and one of the principal owners, invoked his Fifth Amendment right to remain silent in response to every question posed to him during the hearing.


The agency has had dealings with the compounding center in the past, including an inspection in 2002 after reports of problems and a warning letter to the company in 2006. The agency argued that those steps failed to head off the meningitis outbreak in part because the company took advantage of gray areas in the law to elude oversight.


 “Throughout this time, N.E.C.C. has repeatedly disputed F.D.A.’s jurisdiction over its facility,” Dr. Hamburg said in her written testimony.


Republicans on the committee repeatedly cited the 2006 warning letter and the agency’s recent criminal investigation, which involved federal agents seizing computers from the company’s offices.


“We’re just not buying it, doctor,” said Representative Michael C. Burgess, Republican of Texas. “You lack the authority to do anything, yet you send a letter like this?”


Democrats came to Dr. Hamburg’s defense.


 “We need to work together to come up with a solution, but instead what I’m hearing from my Republican colleagues is they want to prosecute the Food and Drug Administration,” said Representative Henry A. Waxman, Democrat of California. “If there’s any ambiguity, it’s our job to clear it up. Why are we looking for anybody to blame other than the company?”


Representative Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts, who has proposed legislation to close what he calls regulatory loopholes, said he believed the committee would eventually come together and pass a bill.


Dr. Hamburg proposed requiring large-scale compounders to register with the F.D.A. and report any problems with their products to the agency. She also recommended new labeling requirements that would make clear the origin and the risks of compounded drugs.


Large-scale pharmacy compounding has greatly expanded since the early 1990s, partly because hospitals are increasingly outsourcing the making of the compounded drugs that they need and also because of widespread shortages of medicines made by the big drug manufacturers.


Jess Bidgood contributed reporting from Boston.



Read More..

Obama Meets C.E.O.’s as Fiscal Reckoning Nears


Luke Sharrett for The New York Times


Ursula M. Burns, chief of Xerox, said the president discussed few specifics of a potential agreement but emphasized that “we cannot go over the fiscal cliff.”







WASHINGTON — President Obama extended an olive branch to business leaders Wednesday, seeking their support as he prepared to negotiate with Congressional Republicans over the fiscal impasse in Washington.




If Congress and the president cannot reach a deal to reduce the deficit by January, more than $600 billion in tax increases and spending cuts will go into effect immediately — a prospect many chief executives and others warn could tip the economy back into recession.


Even so, Mr. Obama has some fence-mending to do before he can count on any serious backing from the business community.


“The president brought up that he hadn’t always had the best relationship with business, and he didn’t think he deserved that, but he understood that’s where things were and wanted it to be better,” said David M. Cote, chief executive of Honeywell. He was one of a dozen corporate leaders invited to meet Mr. Obama at the White House for 90 minutes Wednesday afternoon, after the president’s first news conference since the election.


While Mr. Obama did not present a detailed plan at Wednesday’s meeting or reveal what he would propose in terms of new corporate taxes, he strongly reiterated that he would not allow tax cuts for the middle class to expire. The president, according to attendees and aides, said he was committed to a balanced approach of reductions in entitlements and other government spending and increases in revenue.


With time running out, many people expect the president and Republican leaders in Congress to come up with a short-term compromise that prevents the full slate of tax increases and spending cuts from hitting in January. That would give both sides more time to come up with a far-reaching deal on entitlement spending, even as they work on a broad tax overhaul later next year.


One corporate official briefed on the meeting said that the chief executives came away with a sense that Mr. Obama was poised to present a more formal proposal in the next few days, but that he did not press them for support on particular policies. “It was more of a back and forth,” he said.


The chief executives from some of the country’s biggest and best-known companies, including Procter & Gamble and I.B.M., were not unified on everything, according to one who was interviewed after the meeting.


Many of the executives who described the meeting would speak only on condition of anonymity.


The outreach to business comes as both the White House and corporate America maneuver ahead of the year-end deadline, as well as the beginning of Mr. Obama’s second term. Many executives were put off by what they saw as antibusiness rhetoric coming from the White House in his first term, and many also oppose tax increases on the rich that Mr. Obama favors but would hit them personally.


Both sides have plenty to gain from a better relationship. Business leaders want to buffer their image after the recession and the financial crisis, while Mr. Obama would gain valuable leverage if he could persuade even a few chief executives to come out in favor of higher taxes on people with incomes over $250,000.


Lloyd C. Blankfein, chief executive of Goldman Sachs, publicly endorsed higher tax rates in an opinion article published in The Wall Street Journal on Wednesday.


“I believe that tax increases, especially for the wealthiest, are appropriate, but only if they are joined by serious cuts in discretionary spending and entitlements,” he wrote.


While Mr. Blankfein and other Wall Street leaders have been speaking out about the dangers of the fiscal impasse, only one executive from the financial services industry, Kenneth I. Chenault of American Express, was at Wednesday’s meeting.


Afterward, the corporate leaders seemed pleased with the tone of the meeting but cautious about the prospect of finding common ground with the White House on the budget choices facing Congress and the president.


“I’d say everybody came away feeling pretty good about the whole discussion,” Mr. Cote said. “Now, all of us are C.E.O.’s, so we’ve learned not to confuse words with results. And that’s what we still need to see.”


Ursula M. Burns, chief executive of Xerox, who was also at the meeting, said afterward that it was clear that “we’re going to have to work through some sticking points.” But while “we didn’t get into too many specifics,” she said, it was also made clear that “we cannot go over the fiscal cliff.”


Ms. Burns’s comments about the potentially dire consequences of the fiscal impasse echoed those of other chief executives, including many in the Business Roundtable, which began an ad campaign Tuesday calling on lawmakers to resolve the issue quickly. The Campaign to Fix the Debt, a new group with a $40 million budget and the support of many Fortune 500 chiefs, began its own ad campaign on Monday.


Michael T. Duke, chief executive of Wal-Mart Stores, warned in a statement after the meeting that “before the end of the year, Washington needs to find an agreement to avoid the fiscal cliff.” He said Walmart customers “are working hard to adapt to the ‘new normal,’ but their confidence is still very fragile. They are shopping for Christmas now, and they don’t need uncertainty over a tax increase.”


 


Helene Cooper reported from Washington and Nelson D. Schwartz from New York. Jackie Calmes contributed reporting from Washington.



Read More..

GOP senators cool to idea of Susan Rice as secretary of State









WASHINGTON — Senate Republicans signaled stiffening resistance Tuesday to the Obama administration's possible nomination of U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as secretary of State.

GOP strategists said lawmakers would use such a nomination as an opening for an extended examination of how the administration handled the Sept. 11 militant attack on the U.S. mission in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four Americans, including the U.S. ambassador. Although the Senate rarely rejects a president's Cabinet picks, the strategists said, the process could be so painful and lengthy that Obama might come to regret his choice.

A senior Republican aide said he couldn't predict whether the nomination would be voted down, but "the question is, is this worth spending political capital and taking punches on a subject they'd like to distance themselves from?"

"Whether it's fair to her or not, she's become a poster child for perceptions that there's been a coverup by the administration," he said, speaking anonymously because he was not authorized to address the topic publicly.

Some Senate Republicans have already begun discussing how they would question Rice, he said, and plan to gather information from House Republican colleagues to bore in on questions they say the administration has not yet satisfactorily answered.

Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.), the No. 2 Senate Republican, told reporters he considered Rice "tainted" by her role in the administration's handling of Benghazi, and recommended that the White House instead choose Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, whom administration officials have also been considering for the diplomatic post.

Administration officials said that Rice, a pillar of Obama's foreign policy team since the 2008 election campaign, was a leading candidate for the post, and that they would not be deterred by Republican warnings. Officials and some others familiar with the process predicted that the GOP would eventually end its resistance to Rice because it would become clear that her disputed comments after the attack were prepared by other U.S. officials for her appearances on Sept. 16 talk shows.

Rice said in those TV appearances that the attack was motivated by anger at a U.S.-made film trailer that denounced the prophet Muhammad, and that it was not a planned assault.

Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), who is expected to become the ranking minority member of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, found it "beyond belief" that Rice could have described the attack as motivated by anger over the film, when U.S. officials in Benghazi had told officials in Washington during the attack that it was a terrorist assault.

"I still don't know how anybody of that capacity could have been on television five days later saying the things that were said," Corker said. "I don't know how that could happen."

On Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, an influential Republican on foreign policy issues, predicted that Rice's nomination would have a difficult time making it through the Senate. He said he would not vote for Rice unless she provided more satisfactory explanations of her actions.

A single senator can hold up a nomination if he or she is determined to do so. But a more likely avenue to blocking confirmation would be with a filibuster, aides said. Sixty votes are required to end a filibuster — more than the number of senators in the Democratic caucus.

Senate aides said the Republican caucus, which is regrouping after the election defeat, might decide that shooting down Obama's choice would be a way of underscoring its unhappiness with the administration's treatment of the Benghazi issue. But historically, the Senate has deferred to presidents on Cabinet picks, and Republicans would run the risk of looking unreasonable.

Clinton's intention to leave the post has been public for more than a year, and the candidacies of Rice and Kerry have been discussed for months. Both are interested in the job.

The Washington Post reported Tuesday that Rice was the leading candidate for the diplomatic post and Kerry, a Vietnam veteran, was under consideration as secretary of Defense. If Kerry took either post, Republicans would have a chance to win his Senate seat in a special election — further narrowing the Democrats' majority.

Sources who have been familiar with past nominations say that Obama confers with only a small circle on his top choices, and sometimes emerges with surprise selections. Jim Yong Kim, Obama's choice to head the World Bank, was one such case.

As a second-term president, Obama has wide latitude to pick the candidate he believes will best serve his interests. He is under less pressure to satisfy political constituencies, some Democrats pointed out.

Jay Carney, the White House press secretary, declined to comment on the nomination, but said Obama believed Rice had done an "excellent job" at the United Nations.

paul.richter@latimes.com

Michael Memoli and Christi Parsons in the Washington bureau contributed to this report.



Read More..

Deodorizing Underwear: Why Does Japan Get All the Cool Stuff?











Soon, silent but deadly will just be … silent. At least, that’s the promise a Japanese company is making about its line of deodorizing underwear, which has reportedly become a hit among Japanese businessmen.


Seiren, the company behind the Deoest underwear line, says it has been working on the garments for a few years. The deodorizing power comes from odor-absorbing ceramic particles that are incorporated into the fibers of the underwear. Though Sieren says the garments were originally developed for those suffering from irritable bowel syndrome, Deoest has quickly gained popularity among Japanese businessmen.


Following the success of the underwear, the company added an array of other odor-eliminating undergarments for other oft-smelly body parts, including socks and undershirts.


via PhysOrg






Read More..

Petraeus enlisted for cameo in ‘Call of Duty’ game
















LOS ANGELES (AP) — David Petraeus has landed on his feet with a new gig in “Call of Duty: Black Ops II.”


The retired Army general who stepped down as CIA director last week amid a scandal surrounding his extramarital affair pops up in the highly anticipated Activision Blizzard Inc. first-person shooter game released Tuesday.













A character with Petraeus’ name and likeness voiced by Jim Meskimen briefly appears as the Secretary of Defense in the year 2025.


The cameo was first reported by the gaming site Kotaku.com.


“Call of Duty” games have often employed virtual renditions of political figures.


“Black Ops II” also features an encounter with Manuel Noriega, a female president resembling current Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, an aircraft carrier named the USS Barack Obama and an appearance by retired Lt. Col. Oliver North.


Entertainment News Headlines – Yahoo! News



Read More..

Kidney Donors Given Mandatory Safeguards


ST. LOUIS — Addressing long-held concerns about whether organ donors have adequate protections, the country’s transplant regulators acted late Monday to require that hospitals thoroughly inform living kidney donors of the risks they face, fully evaluate their medical and psychological suitability, and then track their health for two years after donation.


Enactment of the policies by the United Network for Organ Sharing, which manages the transplant system under a federal contract, followed six years of halting development and debate.


Meeting at a St. Louis hotel, the group’s board voted to establish uniform minimum standards for a field long regarded as a medical and ethical Wild West. The organ network, whose initial purpose was to oversee donation from people who had just died, has struggled at times to keep pace with rapid developments in donations from the living.


“There is no question that this is a major development in living donor protection,” said Dr. Christie P. Thomas, a nephrologist at the University of Iowa and the chairman of the network’s living donor committee.


Yet some donor advocates complained that the measures did not go far enough, and argued that the organ network, in its mission to encourage transplants, has a conflict of interest when it comes to safeguarding donors.


Three years ago, the network issued some of the same policies as voluntary guidelines, only to have the Department of Health and Human Services insist they be made mandatory.


Although long-term data on the subject is scarce, few living kidney donors are thought to suffer lasting physical or psychological effects. Kidney donations, known as nephrectomies, are typically done laparoscopically these days through a series of small incisions. The typical patient may spend only a few nights in a hospital and feel largely recovered after several months.


Kidneys are by far the most transplanted organs, and there have been nearly as many living donors as deceased ones over the last decade. What data is available suggests that those with one kidney typically live as long as those with two, and that the risk of a donor dying during the procedure is roughly 3 in 10,000.


But kidney transplants, like all surgery, can sometimes end in catastrophe.


In May at Montefiore Medical Center in the Bronx, a 41-year-old mother of three died when her aorta was accidentally cut during surgery to donate a kidney to her brother. In other recent isolated cases, patients have received donor kidneys infected with undetected H.I.V. or hepatitis C.


Less clear are any longer-term effects on donors. Research conducted by the United Network for Organ Sharing shows that of roughly 70,000 people who donated kidneys between late 1999 and early 2011, 27 died within two years of medical causes that may — or may not — have been related to donation. For a small number of donors, their remaining kidney failed, and they required dialysis or a transplant.


The number of living donors — 5,770 in 2011 — has dropped 10 percent over the last two years, possibly because the struggling economy has made it difficult for prospective donors to take time off from work to recuperate. With the national kidney waiting list now stretching past 94,000 people, and thousands on the list dying each year, transplant officials have said they must improve confidence in the system so more people will donate.


The average age of donors has been rising, posing additional medical risks. And new ethical questions have been raised by the emergence of paired kidney exchanges and transplant chains started by good Samaritans who give an organ to a stranger.


Brad Kornfeld, who donated a kidney to his father in 2004, told the board that it had been impossible to find good information about what to expect, leaving him to search for answers on unreliable Internet chat rooms. He said he had almost backed out.


“If information is power,” said Mr. Kornfeld, a Coloradan who serves on the living donor committee, “the lack of information is crippling.”


Under the policies approved this week, the organ network will require hospitals to collect medical data, including laboratory test results, on most living donors to study lasting effects. Results must be reported at six months, one year and two years.


Similar regulations have been in place since 2000, but they did not require blood and urine testing, and hospitals were allowed to report donors who could not be found as simply lost.


That happened often. In recent years, hospitals have submitted basic clinical information — like whether donors were alive or dead — for only 65 percent of donors and lab data for fewer than 40 percent, according to the organ network. Although the network holds the authority, no hospital has ever been seriously sanctioned for noncompliance.


“It’s time we put some teeth into our policy,” said Jill McMaster, a board member from Tennessee.


By 2015, transplant programs will have to report thorough clinical information on at least 80 percent of donors and lab results on at least 70 percent. The requirements phase in at lower levels for the next two years.


Dr. Stuart M. Flechner of the Cleveland Clinic, the chairman of a coalition of medical societies that made recommendations to the organ network, said 9 of 10 hospitals would currently not meet the new requirement.


Donna Luebke, a kidney donor from Ohio who once served on the organ network’s board, said the new standards would matter only if enforcement were more rigorous. She noted that the organization was dominated by transplant doctors: “UNOS is nothing but the foxes watching the henhouse,” she said.


Another of the new regulations prescribes in detail the medical and psychological screenings that hospitals must conduct for potential donors. It requires automatic exclusion if the potential donor has diabetes, uncontrolled hypertension or H.I.V., among other conditions.


The new policies also require that hospitals appoint an independent advocate to counsel and represent donors, and that donors receive detailed information in advance about medical, psychological and financial risks.


Read More..

At Microsoft, Sinofsky Seen as Smart but Abrasive





On a warm night in late October, Steven Sinofsky stood on a platform in New York’s Times Square, smiling as a huge crowd roared at the unveiling of a Microsoft retail store, where Windows 8 and the company’s new Surface tablet were about to go on sale.




Less than three weeks later, Mr. Sinofsky — who, as the head of Windows, was arguably the second-most important leader at Microsoft — suddenly left the company. His abrasive style was a source of discord within Microsoft, and he and Steven A. Ballmer, Microsoft’s chief executive, agreed that it was time for him to leave, according to a person briefed on the situation who was not authorized to speak publicly about it.


Mr. Sinofsky was widely admired for his effectiveness in running one of the biggest and most important software development organizations on the planet. But his departure, which Microsoft announced late on Monday, parallels in many respects that of Scott Forstall, the headstrong former head of Apple’s mobile software development, who was fired by Apple’s chief executive, Timothy D. Cook, in late October.


Both cases underscore a quandary that chief executives sometimes face: when do the costs of keeping brilliant leaders who cannot seem to get along with others outweigh the benefits?


The tipping point that led to Mr. Sinofsky’s departure came after an accumulation of run-ins with Mr. Ballmer and other company leaders, rather than a single incident, according to interviews with several current and former Microsoft executives who declined to be named discussing internal matters.


One example of the kind of behavior that hurt Mr. Sinofsky’s standing at the company occurred this year at a two-day retreat for Microsoft’s senior executives at the Semiahmoo resort on the coast just below the Canadian border in Washington State. At the meeting, Microsoft’s various division heads were expected to make presentations on their businesses, answer questions and remain to hear their peers repeat the exercise.


When Mr. Sinofsky stood on the first day to speak about the Windows division, he told the group he had not prepared a presentation, and if they wanted to catch up on the progress of Windows 8, they could read his company blog, where he publicly chronicled the software’s development. He answered questions from the audience and then left the resort, while his colleagues remained until the next day, according to multiple people who were present.


Mr. Sinofsky’s early exit and halfhearted presentation were widely noted by his colleagues, irking even his admirers in the company. “He lost a lot of support,” one attendee said.


It wasn’t until this Monday, though, that Mr. Sinofsky and Mr. Ballmer both decided it would be best if Mr. Sinofsky left. Bill Gates, Microsoft’s chairman, supported the move, a person briefed on the matter said. Mr. Sinofsky served as a technical assistant to Mr. Gates in the 1990s.


In an e-mail to Microsoft employees, Mr. Sinofsky said the decision to leave “was a personal and private choice.” Many surprised Microsoft insiders noted that Mr. Sinofsky’s departure was immediate, an unusual arrangement for someone with a 23-year track record at the company. A Microsoft spokesman, Frank Shaw, said Mr. Sinofsky was not available to comment.


Although Mr. Ballmer grew increasingly impatient with Mr. Sinofsky throughout the year, he held back from taking any action earlier to avoid disrupting the release of Windows 8, the most important product Microsoft has unveiled in years, a person with knowledge of his thinking said.


The final decision could not have come lightly. Although many people at Microsoft viewed him as a ruthless corporate schemer, Mr. Sinofsky ran the highly complex organization responsible for Windows as a disciplined army that met deadlines, and he was respected by people on his team.


He achieved hero status within Microsoft several years ago by taking over the leadership of Windows after the debacle that was Windows Vista, a much-delayed operating system whose sluggish performance and technical problems worsened Microsoft’s reputation for mediocre software. Mr. Sinfosky led the development of a new version of the operating system, Windows 7, which was positively reviewed and sold well.


“He did great things with Windows,” said Michael Cusumano, a professor at the Sloan School of Management at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “That’s still the core of the company.”


But while Mr. Sinofsky was effective, Mr. Cusumano said, he could be secretive and difficult to get along with, as he learned while dealing with Mr. Sinofsky while Mr. Cusumano was writing a book on Microsoft in the early 1990s. “I could imagine that he burned a lot of bridges and created a bunch of enemies,” he said.


Read More..