Deficit hawks' 'generational theft' argument is a sham

Here's a phrase you can expect to be hearing a lot in the national debate over fiscal policy, as we move past the "sequester," which is today's crisis du jour, and toward the budget cliff/government shutdown deadline looming at the end of March:

"Generational theft."

The core idea the term expresses is that we're spending so much more on our seniors than our children that future generations are being cheated. An important corollary is that the government debt we incur today will come slamming down upon the shoulders of our children and grandchildren.

The generational theft trope has already been receiving a vigorous workout in the press. Earlier this month, the Washington Post gave great play to a study by the Urban Institute stating that the federal government spends $7 on the elderly for every dollar it spends on kids. As we shall see, this is true as far as it goes, but it doesn't go nearly far enough to render an accurate picture of government spending.

The National Journal, another influential publication in Washington, picked up the theme last week by observing that because the sequester exempts Social Security and Medicare from budget cuts, the automatic spending reductions it mandates will fall disproportionately on education and other such boons to the young. This will "deepen the budget's generational imbalance."

This is also a bedrock argument of the anti-deficit organizations, such as Fix the Debt, associated with hedge fund billionaire Peter G. Peterson. For decades he has pursued a wearisome and spectacularly self-interested campaign to cut Social Security and Medicare benefits for the working class so taxes won't go up too much on the wealthy.

One of those organizations, called "The Can Kicks Back," promotes a "Millennial-driven campaign to fix the national debt." But backstopping its twenty- and thirty-something leaders is an advisory board comprising such Peterson frontmen as Morgan Stanley board member Erskine Bowles and former Sen. Alan Simpson (R-Wyo.). These guys are "millennials" only if we're talking about the last millennium before this one.

So here's the truth about the "generational theft" theme: It's wrong on the numbers and wrong on the implications.

Let's start with that 7-to-1 spending ratio on seniors versus children. Among the flaws in the calculation is that the vast majority of government dollars spent on children comes from state and local governments, which pay most of the cost of education. On a per capita basis, state and local spending on kids swamps the federal government's spending 8 to 1.

Moreover, there are twice as many children 18 and under as seniors 65 and over (this 2008 figure also comes from the Urban Institute report). Put the numbers together and you discover that spending by governments at all levels in 2008 came to about $1 trillion on seniors and $936 billion on children. In other words, very close to 1 to 1.

The notion underlying the comparison of spending on seniors and children is that "if you save a dollar on Social Security it would be transferred automatically to children," observes Theodore R. Marmor, an emeritus professor of public policy at Yale and a long-term student of social welfare programs. He traces this notion to deficit hawks and dismisses it as "not naive, but cynical."

That's because most of the spending on seniors is in Social Security and Medicare, and therefore has been largely paid for by those very beneficiaries over the course of their working lives.

Payroll taxes have more than covered what today's average retiree will receive back from Social Security. They won't cover the average payout on Medicare, but that's an artifact of uncontrolled healthcare costs, not of the structure of Medicare itself. Changing the terms of that program, say by raising the eligibility age (currently 65) won't save money and may actually raise costs.

In other ways, treating Social Security and Medicare spending on the one hand and spending on kids on the other as though they're opposite sides of a zero-sum game is just an act of ideological legerdemain aimed at undermining those programs.

If America wants to spend more on children, it's plenty rich enough to do so without eating away at the income of their grandparents. The money can come from the defense budget, farm supports or dozens of other places, even higher income taxes.

Let's not forget, too, that the people who will really suffer from gutting Social Security won't be today's seniors, who will escape the worst of the cutbacks — they'll be today's young people, for whom Social Security would become much less supportive when they retire.

What about the debt load we're supposedly imposing on future generations? This is another transparently Petersonian feat of sleight of hand, based on the assertion that while it's we who incur the debt, it's our children who will have to pay if off.

All the hand-wringing over today's borrowing conveniently assumes that the debt buys nothing, which makes it easier for debt hawks to pretend that it's only an expense and not an investment.

But money borrowed for the stimulus has bought jobs and unemployment benefits, which have helped sustain families through the Great Recession. (At least a few of those families have children, wouldn't you guess?)

In a larger sense, money borrowed by every generation is typically invested in programs and infrastructure — highway, schools, research and conservation, for example — that will add to future generations' wealth.

It's the persistence of the "generational theft" claim, which bubbles up every few years, that exposes its ideological roots.

It's a fundamental piece of a decades-long campaign to distract Americans into thinking that the threat to their way of life comes from a war of old against young, rather than an intra-generational class war in which the vast majority of economic gains from improvements in worker's productivity has flowed to the wealthy, not to the workers.

The economist Dean Baker observes, for example, if the federal hourly minimum wage had merely kept up with productivity growth after 1969 rather than stagnating (and getting eaten away by inflation) it would be more than $16.54, and we wouldn't be arguing about whether the country can "afford" an increase to $9.

The "generational theft" argument is a sham. It's an attempt to get around the fact, so distasteful to the enemies of government social programs, that Social Security and Medicare are hugely popular. As Marmor observes, if you can't put across the case that these programs are undesirable, "you have to make them look uncontrollable, ungovernable, and therefore unaffordable."

The argument has been tried out on several generations in the past, and they've seen through it. Today's generation should see through it too.

Michael Hiltzik's column appears Sundays and Wednesdays. Reach him at mhiltzik@latimes.com, read past columns at latimes.com/hiltzik, check out facebook.com/hiltzik and follow @latimeshiltzik on Twitter.

Read More..

Mike Piazza softens stance on Dodgers' Vin Scully

PHOENIX—

— Calling Vin Scully "a class act" and saying he had "the utmost respect" for him, Mike Piazza on Monday defended what he wrote in his recently released autobiography about the Hall of Fame broadcaster.

In his book, "Long Shot," Piazza described Scully as instrumental in turning the fans of Los Angeles against him during the contract stalemate that led to his trade to the Florida Marlins in 1998. Piazza wrote that Scully "was crushing me" on the air, a charge Scully vehemently denied.

"I can't say that I have regrets," Piazza said. "I was just trying to explain the situation."

The former All-Star catcher was at the Dodgers' spring-training facility with Italy's World Baseball Classic team, for which he is a coach. Scully was also at the complex, to call the Dodgers' 7-6 victory over the Chicago Cubs.

"I'd love to see him," Piazza said.

The two didn't meet.

"I always liked him," Scully said. "I admired him. I think either he made a mistake or got some bad advice. I still think of him as a great player and I hope he gets into the Hall of Fame. I really do. Whatever disappointment I feel, I'll put aside."

Scully declined to comment further on Piazza or his book.

Piazza complimented Scully as he tried to defend what he wrote.

"Vin is a class act; he's an icon," Piazza said. "To this day, I have the utmost respect for him. But the problem is, you have to go back in time and understand that at that point in time in my career with the Dodgers was a very tumultuous time. I was more or less telling my version of the story, at least what I was experiencing. And I said at the end of the book, it's not coming from a place of malice or anger. I think anybody who remembers that time knows it was a very tumultuous time."

Piazza said his intent wasn't to blame Scully.

"I don't think anybody who read the passage from start to finish felt that way," Piazza said. "Anybody who reads it knows it wasn't me blaming. That was definitely not the only factor. There were other factors. The team made the mistake, I made the mistake, of speaking publicly."

Piazza acknowledged that he never heard Scully's broadcasts and that his impressions of them were based on what he heard from others.

"My perception was that he was given the Dodgers' versions of the negotiations, which, I feel, wasn't 100% accurate," Piazza said.

In his book, Piazza also took issue with how Scully asked him about his contract demands during a spring-training interview. Piazza said Monday that he was "taken aback" by the line of questioning because he previously hadn't talked publicly about the negotiations.

To reach the practice fields at Camelback Ranch on Monday, Piazza had to pass through a gantlet of Dodgers fans. Piazza said he wasn't nervous.

"I did a book signing a couple of weeks ago in Pasadena and the fans were really nice," he said.

Piazza denied that he hadn't returned to Dodger Stadium in recent years out of fear of being booed, as Tom Lasorda told The Times last month.

Piazza said he always associated the Dodgers with the O'Malley family, which sold the team to News Corp. in 1998.

"Since then, obviously, they've taken on a different identity," Piazza said.

Piazza was noncommittal about visiting the ballpark in the future. "We'll see," he said. "I'll never say never."

Wouldn't it be harder to return now that his portrayal of Scully has upset fans?

"I don't know," he said. "I can't answer that."

Piazza also spoke about falling short of being elected to the Hall of Fame in his first year of eligibility.

"I definitely couldn't lie and say I wasn't a little disappointed," he said.

He is hopeful he will one day be inducted. "I trust the process," he said.

Piazza wouldn't say whether he thought Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens deserved to be in the Hall of Fame. Both players, who have been linked to performance-enhancing drugs, also were denied election.

Piazza has denied using performance-enhancing drugs and has never faced detailed allegations that he did. Asked if he was upset that the indiscretions of others might have altered others' perceptions of him, he replied, "Unfortunately, that's the way life is sometimes. I can't control and worry about what people think."

dylan.hernandez@latimes.com

Read More..

Horse Meat in European Beef Raises Questions on U.S. Exposure

The alarm in Europe over the discovery of horse meat in beef products escalated again Monday, when the Swedish furniture giant Ikea withdrew an estimated 1,670 pounds of meatballs from sale in 14 European countries.

Ikea acted after authorities in the Czech Republic detected horse meat in its meatballs. The company said it had made the decision even though its tests two weeks ago did not detect horse DNA.

Horse meat mixed with beef was first found last month in Ireland, then Britain, and has now expanded steadily across the Continent. The situation in Europe has created unease among American consumers over whether horse meat might also find its way into the food supply in the United States. Here are answers to commonly asked questions on the subject.

Has horse meat been found in any meatballs sold in Ikea stores in the United States?

Ikea says there is no horse meat in the meatballs it sells in the United States. The company issued a statement on Monday saying meatballs sold in its 38 stores in the United States were bought from an American supplier and contained beef and pork from animals raised in the United States and Canada.

“We do not tolerate any other ingredients than the ones stipulated in our recipes or specifications, secured through set standards, certifications and product analysis by accredited laboratories,” Ikea said in its statement.

Mona Liss, a spokeswoman for Ikea, said by e-mail that all of the businesses that supply meat to its meatball maker  issue letters guaranteeing that they will not misbrand or adulterate their products. “Additionally, as an abundance of caution, we are in the process of DNA-testing our meatballs,” Ms. Liss wrote. “Results should be concluded in 30 days.”

Does the United States import any beef from countries where horse meat has been found?

No. According to the Department of Agriculture, the United States imports no beef from any of the European countries involved in the scandal. Brian K. Mabry, a spokesman for the department’s Food Safety and Inspection Service, said: “Following a decision by Congress in November 2011 to lift the ban on horse slaughter, two establishments, one located in New Mexico and one in Missouri, have applied for a grant of inspection exclusively for equine slaughter. The Food Safety and Inspection Service (F.S.I.S.) is currently reviewing those applications.”

Has horse meat been found in ground meat products sold in the United States?

No. Meat products sold in the United States must pass Department of Agriculture inspections, whether produced domestically or imported. No government financing has been available for inspection of horse meat for human consumption in the United States since 2005, when the Humane Society of the United States got a rider forbidding financing for inspection of horse meat inserted in the annual appropriations bill for the Agriculture Department. Without inspection, such plants may not operate legally.

The rider was attached to every subsequent agriculture appropriations bill until 2011, when it was left out of an omnibus spending bill signed by President Obama on Nov. 18. The U.S.D.A.  has not committed any money for the inspection of horse meat.

“We’re real close to getting some processing plants up and running, but there are no inspectors because the U.S.D.A. is working on protocols,” said Dave Duquette, a horse trader in Oregon and president of United Horsemen, a small group that works to retrain and rehabilitate unwanted horses and advocates the slaughter of horses for meat. “We believe very strongly that the U.S.D.A. is going to bring inspectors online directly.”

Are horses slaughtered for meat for human consumption in the United States?

Not currently, although live horses from the United States are exported to slaughterhouses in Canada and Mexico. The lack of inspection effectively ended the slaughter of horse meat for human consumption in the United States; 2007 was the last year horses were slaughtered in the United States. At the time financing of inspections was banned, a Belgian company operated three horse meat processing plants — in Fort Worth and Kaufman, Tex., and DeKalb, Ill. — but exported the meat it produced in them.

Since 2011, efforts have been made to re-establish the processing of horse meat for human consumption in the United States. A small plant in Roswell, N.M., which used to process beef cattle into meat has been retooled to slaughter 20 to 25 horses a day. But legal challenges have prevented it from opening, Mr. Duquette said. Gov. Susana Martinez of New Mexico opposes opening the plant and has asked the U.S.D.A. to block it.

Last month, the two houses of the Oklahoma Legislature passed separate bills to override a law against the slaughter of horses for meat but kept the law’s ban on consumption of such meat by state residents. California, Illinois, New Jersey, Tennessee and Texas prohibit horse slaughter for human consumption.

Is there a market for horse meat in the United States?

Mr. Duquette said horse meat was popular among several growing demographic groups in the United States, including Tongans, Mongolians and various Hispanic populations. He said he knew of at least 10 restaurants that wanted to buy horse meat. “People are very polarized on this issue,” he said. Wayne Pacelle, chief executive of the Humane Society of the United States, disagreed, saying demand in the United States was limited. Italy is the largest consumer of horse meat, he said, followed by France and Belgium.

Is horse meat safe to eat?

That is a matter of much debate between proponents and opponents of horse meat consumption. Mr. Duquette said that horse meat, some derived from American animals processed abroad, was eaten widely around the world without health problems. “It’s high in protein, low in fat and has a whole lot of omega 3s,” he said.

The Humane Society says that because horse meat is not consumed in the United States, the animals’ flesh is likely to contain residues of many drugs that are unsafe for humans to eat. The organization’s list of drugs given to horses runs to 29 pages.

“We’ve been warning the Europeans about this for years,” Mr. Pacelle said. “You have all these food safety standards in Europe — they do not import chicken carcasses from the U.S. because they are bathed in chlorine, and won’t take pork because of the use of ractopamine in our industry — but you’ve thrown out the book when it comes to importing horse meat from North America.”

The society has filed petitions with the Department of Agriculture and Food and Drug Administration, arguing that they should test horse meat before allowing it to be marketed in the United States for humans to eat.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated how many pounds of meatballs Ikea was withdrawing from sale in 14 European countries. It is 1,670 pounds, not 1.67 billion pounds.

This article has been revised to reflect the following correction:

Correction: February 25, 2013

An earlier version of this article misstated the last year that horses were slaughtered in the United States. It is 2007, not 2006.

Read More..

Bill would bar some athletes from California workers' comp claims

SACRAMENTO — Players for professional sports teams based outside of California would be barred from filing compensation claims for job-related injuries under proposed legislation supported by owners of football, baseball, basketball, hockey and soccer franchises.

A bill unveiled Monday by Assembly Insurance Committee Chairman Henry Perea (D-Fresno) would ban retired athletes from seeking workers' compensation benefits from California courts after they've played relatively few games in California stadiums and arenas during their careers.

The proposal, AB 1309, is expected to be one of the most hotly debated issues of the legislative session, with team owners lining up against the players' unions and their labor allies.

The bill, said Perea, is expected to be a "starting point" for a lively legislative debate over whether claims from out-of-state retired players represent abuse of the California workers' compensation system and wind up hitting all California employers with higher premiums and surcharges that pay for outstanding claims left by failed insurance companies.

"It's a question of fairness," Perea said.

Workers' compensation is 100% employer funded and does not depend on taxpayers' support.

The cost argument is phony, countered Richard Berthelsen, a consulting lawyer with the National Football League Players Assn. A prorated share of a team's workers' compensation bill is calculated into athletes' salary caps, so, in effect, they're paying for their own insurance coverage, Berthelsen contended. "They pay for their own benefits," he said.

Perea's bill would affect professional athletes from only the five big sports and not members of other professions whose work takes them from state to state, such as horse racing jockeys, truck drivers and salesmen. It would bar the filing of claims for cumulative trauma — caused by years of stress and pounding on a body rather than a broken bone or other specific injury — unless a player worked at least 90 days in California during the year prior to seeking benefits.

California is the only state that makes it relatively easy for long-retired players to claim cumulative trauma injuries. About 4,500 out-of-state players have won judgments or settlements since the early 1980s, according to a study commissioned by the professional sports leagues.

The bill, if it should become law, would apply to thousands of out-of-state athletes' claims currently pending before California workers' compensation judges.

Perea's legislation, by restricting benefits only for professional athletes, is potentially unfair, labor officials argued.

Regardless of whether they play for out-of-state teams, said Angie Wei, legislative director of the California Labor Federation, "these players are workers and they deserve to have access to their benefits. They work for short durations of time at an intense level and get injured."

marc.lifsher@latimes.com

Read More..

California GOP faces steep road back

SACRAMENTO — The Republican Party has become so pathetic in California that it can't even find a candidate to run for governor next year.

Correct that. It isn't even looking. Wouldn't know where to begin.

The party's in no position to recruit anyway. It has little to offer. Certainly not a brand name, not in a state where the GOP steadily has been losing market share. Definitely not money. The party's deep in debt.

Actually, neither major party historically has had to recruit top-of-ticket candidates. They're usually lined up begging, jockeying for position to win the party's nomination.

Republicans will hold a state convention next weekend in Sacramento. Normally, there'd be a parade of gubernatorial wannabes fighting for the mike and opening up hospitality suites during the silly hours. But not this time.

This convention apparently will have all the excitement of a Saturday at the dump. The big event will be the election of a former Republican legislative leader, Jim Brulte, as the new state chairman.

Brulte wants to rebuild the party from the ground up. That includes recruiting local candidates and building a farm system for major office.

But no one can name a Republican who would have a snowball's chance of beating Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown next year — at least someone who might run.

The name of former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice always is tossed out. But everyone concedes that's fantasy. She's committed to education reform, a Brown vulnerability. She loves her life in academia at Stanford, however, and shuns smelly state politics.

Another name is U.S. Rep. Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the Republican whip. As a former Assembly GOP leader, he understands Sacramento and perhaps could make it work. But he's not going to surrender his No. 3 party leadership post in Congress.

One big red flag for any Republican is Brown's remarkable strength. He seems practically unbeatable in his expected quest for a record fourth term as governor. (In October, he'll surpass Gov. Earl Warren's record for years served in the office.)

A Field Poll last week showed that Brown's job approval rating among voters has risen to an eye-popping 57%. Moreover, 61% said he "can be trusted to do what is right." And 56% thought he "deserves credit for turning around the state's finances."

But — pointing to some weakness — 57% also said that Brown "advocates too many big-government projects that the state cannot afford" (bullet train). And 47% said he "favors organized labor too much" (public pensions).

So there are some sores for opponents to peck away at. And, after all, he will be 76.

Brown probably can't be bounced from office, however. So forget about trying to find a Republican winner. Just settle for a credible candidate who can pass the laugh test.

Ideally, the candidate would be someone relatively young who runs on the high road — avoiding the gutter — and finishes in position to wage a successful encore race when Brown gets booted by term limits in 2018.

Being a Latino could be a plus, attracting voters from a growing ethnic group that has been repulsed by what it perceives as GOP immigrant bashing.

But who? Remember we're not looking for electability. What's needed is credibility — to carry the colors without embarrassing the party.

That excludes one legislator who has expressed interest, Assemblyman Tim Donnelly of San Bernardino County. He's a former Minuteman who rails against illegal immigration and was placed on probation for trying to bring a loaded firearm onto an airplane. He called it an "honest mistake."

"He'd be a really horrible candidate, worse than no candidate," says Republican analyst Tony Quinn.

Read More..

Lawrence wins actress, Lee takes directing Oscar

LOS ANGELES (AP) — "Hunger Games" star Jennifer Lawrence has triumphed in Hollywood's big games, winning the best-actress Academy Award as a damaged soul in "Silver Linings Playbook," while Ang Lee pulled off a huge upset as best director for "Life of Pi."

Lawrence took a fall on her way to the stage, tripping on the steps.

"You guys are just standing up because you feel bad that I fell," Lawrence joked as the crowd gave her a standing ovation.

At 22, Lawrence is the second-youngest woman to win best actress, behind Marlee Matlin, who was 21 when she won for "Children of a Lesser God." Lawrence also is the third-youngest best-actress contender ever, earning her first nomination at age 20 two years ago for her breakout role in "Winter's Bone," the film that took her from virtual unknown to one of Hollywood's most-versatile and sought-after performers.

Lee won best director for the shipwreck story "Life of Pi," taking the prize over Steven Spielberg, who had been favored for "Lincoln."

Anne Hathaway went from propping up leaden sidekick James Franco at the Academy Awards to hefting a golden statue of her own with a supporting-actress Oscar win as a doomed mother-turned-prostitute in the musical "Les Miserables."

Christoph Waltz won his second supporting-actor Oscar for a Tarantino film, this time as a genteel bounty hunter in the slave-revenge saga "Django Unchained." Tarantino also won his second Oscar, for original screenplay for "Django."

Hathaway, whose perkiness helped carry her and the listless Franco through an ill-starred stint as Oscar hosts two years ago, is the third performer in a musical to win supporting actress during the genre's resurgence in the last decade.

"It came true," said Hathaway, who joins 2002 supporting-actress winner Catherine Zeta-Jones for "Chicago" and 2006 recipient Jennifer Hudson for "Dreamgirls." Hathaway had warm thanks for "Les Miz" co-star Hugh Jackman, with whom she once sang a duet at the Oscars when he was the show's host.

Hathaway's Oscar came for her role as noble but fallen Fantine in the big-screen adaptation of the Broadway smash that was based on Victor Hugo's epic novel of revolution, romance and redemption in 19th century France.

"Life of Pi" was in the lead with four Oscars, also winning for Mychael Danna's multicultural musical score that blends Indian and Western instruments and influences, plus cinematography and visual effects.

"I really want to thank you for believing this story and sharing this incredible journey with me," Lee said to all who worked on the film, a surprise blockbuster about a youth trapped on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger.

A veteran performer in Germany and his native Austria, Waltz had been a virtual unknown in Hollywood when Tarantino cast him as a gleefully evil Nazi in 2009's "Inglourious Basterds," which won him his first Oscar.

"I have to cast the right people to make those characters come alive," said Tarantino, who won previously for "Pulp Fiction. "And boy, this time, did I do it. Thank you so much, guys."

Waltz has since done a handful of other Hollywood movies, but it's Tarantino who has given him his two choicest roles. Backstage, Waltz had a simple explanation for why the collaboration works.

"Quentin writes poetry, and I like poetry," Waltz said.

Oscar host Seth MacFarlane opened with a mildly edgy monologue that offered the usual polite jabs at the academy, the stars and the industry. He took a poke at academy voters over the snub of Ben Affleck, who missed out on a directing nomination for best-picture favorite "Argo," a thriller about the CIA's plot to rescue six Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis.

"The story was so top secret that the film's director is unknown to the academy," MacFarlane said. "They know they screwed up. Ben, it's not your fault."

"Argo" claimed the Oscar for adapted screenplay for Chris Terrio, who worked with Affleck to create a liberally embellished story based on an article about the rescue and part of CIA operative Tony Mendez's memoir.

Terrio dedicated the award to Mendez, saying "33 years ago, Tony, using nothing but his creativity and his intelligence, Tony got six people out of a bad situation."

The foreign-language prize went to Austrian filmmaker Michael Haneke's old-age love story "Amour," which had been a major surprise with five nominations, including picture, director and original screenplay for Haneke and best actress for Emmanuelle Riva, who turned 86 on Sunday and would be the oldest acting winner ever.

The top prize winner at last year's Cannes Film Festival, "Amour" follows the agonizing story of an elderly man (Jean-Louis Trintignant) tending his wife (Riva) as she declines from age and illness.

Haneke thanked his own wife for supporting him in his work for 30 years.

"You are the center of my life," Haneke said.

The Scottish adventure "Brave," from Disney's Pixar Animation unit, was named best animated feature. Pixar films have won seven of the 12 Oscars since the category was added.

"I just happen to be wearing the kilt," said "Brave" co-director Mark Andrews, who took the stage in his trademark Scottish garment.

The upbeat musical portrait "Searching for Sugar Man" took the documentary feature prize. The film follows the quest of two South African fans to discover the fate of acclaimed but obscure singer-songwriter Sixto Rodriguez, who dropped out of sight after two albums in the 1970s and was rumored to have died a bitter death.

"Thanks to one of the greatest singers ever, Rodriguez," said "Sugar Man" director Malik Bendjelloul.

There was a rare tie in one category, with the Osama bin Laden thriller "Zero Dark Thirty" and the James Bond tale "Skyfall" each winning for sound editing.

William Shatner made a guest appearance as his "Star Trek" character Capt. James Kirk, appearing on a giant screen above the stage during MacFarlane's monologue, saying he came back in time to stop the host from ruining the Oscars.

"Your jokes are tasteless and inappropriate, and everyone ends up hating you," said Shatner, who revealed a headline supposedly from the next day's newspaper that read, "Seth MacFarlane worst Oscar host ever."

The performance-heavy Oscars also included an opening number featuring Charlize Theron and Channing Tatum, who did a classy dance while MacFarlane crooned "The Way You Look Tonight." Daniel Radcliffe and Joseph Gordon-Levitt then joined MacFarlane for an elegant musical rendition of "High Hopes."

Halle Berry introduced a tribute to the Bond franchise, in which she has co-starred, as the British super-spy celebrated his 50th anniversary on the big-screen last year with the latest adventure "Skyfall." Shirley Bassey sang her theme song to the 1960s Bond tale "Goldfinger." Later, pop star Adele performed her theme tune from "Skyfall," which won the best-song Oscar.

Barbra Streisand injected some musical sentiment into the show's segment memorializing Hollywood figures who died in the past year as she sang "The Way We Were," the Oscar-winning song she did in the film of the same name.

A salute to the resurgence of movie musicals in the last decade included Oscar winners Zeta-Jones singing "All That Jazz" from "Chicago" and Hudson doing "And I Am Telling You I'm Not Going" from "Dreamgirls." Hathaway and Jackman joined cast mates of best-picture contender "Les Miserables" to sing songs from their musical.

Academy officials said all performances were sung live.

Fans had pondered how far MacFarlane the impudent creator of "Family Guy," might push the normally prim and proper Oscars. MacFarlane was generally polite and respectful, showcasing his charm, wit and vocal gifts.

MacFarlane did press his luck a bit on an Abraham Lincoln joke, noting that Raymond Massey preceded "Lincoln" star Daniel Day-Lewis as an Oscar nominee for 1940's "Abe Lincoln in Illinois."

"I would argue that the actor who really got inside Lincoln's head was John Wilkes Booth," MacFarlane wisecracked, earning some groans from the crowd. "A hundred and 50 years later, and it's still too soon?"

Affleck's "Argo" looks like it will be an uncommon film to claim best picture without a directing nomination. Affleck was not counting on anything, though.

"We don't expect to depart with anything but our integrity," Affleck said before the show.

"Argo" has won winning practically every top prize at earlier honors. Hollywood was shocked that Affleck was snubbed for a directing nomination, possibly earning the film some sympathy votes, particularly from actors, who love it when one of their own succeeds behind the camera.

The story of how Hollywood, Canada and the CIA teamed up to rescue six Americans during the Iranian hostage crisis, "Argo" would become just the fourth film in 85 years to claim the top prize without a best-directing nomination and the first since 1989's "Driving Miss Daisy."

___

AP writers Christy Lemire, Sandy Cohen, Beth Harris and Anthony McCartney contributed to this report.

Read More..

‘Bloodless’ Lung Transplants for Jehovah’s Witnesses

Eric Kayne for The New York Times

SHARING HOME AND FAITH A Houston couple hosted Gene and Rebecca Tomczak, center, in October so she could get care nearby.

HOUSTON — Last April, after being told that only a transplant could save her from a fatal lung condition, Rebecca S. Tomczak began calling some of the top-ranked hospitals in the country.

She started with Emory University Hospital in Atlanta, just hours from her home near Augusta, Ga. Then she tried Duke and the University of Arkansas and Johns Hopkins. Each advised Ms. Tomczak, then 69, to look somewhere else.

The reason: Ms. Tomczak, who was baptized at age 12 as a Jehovah’s Witness, insisted for religious reasons that her transplant be performed without a blood transfusion. The Witnesses believe that Scripture prohibits the transfusion of blood, even one’s own, at the risk of forfeiting eternal life.

Given the complexities of lung transplantation, in which transfusions are routine, some doctors felt the procedure posed unacceptable dangers. Others could not get past the ethics of it all. With more than 1,600 desperately ill people waiting for a donated lung, was it appropriate to give one to a woman who might needlessly sacrifice her life and the organ along with it?

By the time Ms. Tomczak found Dr. Scott A. Scheinin at The Methodist Hospital in Houston last spring, he had long since made peace with such quandaries. Like a number of physicians, he had become persuaded by a growing body of research that transfusions often pose unnecessary risks and should be avoided when possible, even in complicated cases.

By cherry-picking patients with low odds of complications, Dr. Scheinin felt he could operate almost as safely without blood as with it. The way he saw it, patients declined lifesaving therapies all the time, for all manner of reasons, and it was not his place to deny care just because those reasons were sometimes religious or unconventional.

“At the end of the day,” he had resolved, “if you agree to take care of these patients, you agree to do it on their terms.”

Ms. Tomczak’s case — the 11th so-called bloodless lung transplant attempted at Methodist over three years — would become the latest test of an innovative approach that was developed to accommodate the unique beliefs of the world’s eight million Jehovah’s Witnesses but may soon become standard practice for all surgical patients.

Unlike other patients, Ms. Tomczak would have no backstop. Explicit in her understanding with Dr. Scheinin was that if something went terribly wrong, he would allow her to bleed to death. He had watched Witness patients die before, with a lifesaving elixir at hand.

Ms. Tomczak had dismissed the prospect of a transplant for most of the two years she had struggled with sarcoidosis, a progressive condition of unknown cause that leads to scarring in the lungs. The illness forced her to quit a part-time job with Nielsen, the market research firm.

Then in April, on a trip to the South Carolina coast, she found that she was too breathless to join her frolicking grandchildren on the beach. Tethered to an oxygen tank, she watched from the boardwalk, growing sad and angry and then determined to reclaim her health.

“I wanted to be around and be a part of their lives,” Ms. Tomczak recalled, dabbing at tears.

She knew there was danger in refusing to take blood. But she thought the greater peril would come from offending God.

“I know,” she said, “that if I did anything that violates Jehovah’s law, I would not make it into the new system, where he’s going to make earth into a paradise. I know there are risks. But I think I am covered.”

Cutting Risks, and Costs

The approach Dr. Scheinin would use — originally called “bloodless medicine” but later re-branded as “patient blood management” — has been around for decades. His mentor at Methodist, Dr. Denton A. Cooley, the renowned cardiac pioneer, performed heart surgery on hundreds of Witnesses starting in the late 1950s. The first bloodless lung transplant, at Johns Hopkins, was in 1996.

But nearly 17 years later, the degree of difficulty for such procedures remains so high that Dr. Scheinin and his team are among the very few willing to attempt them.

In 2009, after analyzing Methodist’s own data, Dr. Scheinin became convinced that if he selected patients carefully, he could perform lung transplants without transfusions. Hospital administrators resisted at first, knowing that even small numbers of deaths could bring scrutiny from federal regulators.

“My job is to push risk away,” said Dr. A. Osama Gaber, the hospital’s director of transplantation, “so I wasn’t really excited about it. But the numbers were very convincing.”

Read More..

Herbalife is global giant with business model in question

Stock spotlight is a new weekly feature that will profile a notable, public company.

The company: Herbalife Ltd.

Headquarters: Los Angeles

Ticker: HLF

Employees: 6,200 employees and 3.2 million independent distributors worldwide

Revenue: $4.1 billion in 2012

Net Income: $477 million in 2012

Stock Price: $36.79 at Friday's close

52-week range: $24.24 to $73

Annual dividend: $1.20 a share annually, a current yield of about 3%

P/E Ratio: $7.87, based on 2013 estimated earnings

The business: The company sells weight-loss, nutrition, hair- and skin-care products in more than 80 countries, utilizing independent distributors who profit from their own sales and sales from others they recruit into the business. Its top-selling product is cookies and cream flavor Formula 1, a high-protein, meal-replacement shake mix. Herbalife does very little mainstream advertising and does not sell products in retail stores. Instead it relies on a network of independent distributors who recruit customers, counsel them about nutrition and fitness and sell them products. The company recently agreed to a $44-million, 10-year deal to sponsor the Los Angeles Galaxy professional soccer team, one of many professional sports clubs it supports around the world.

The latest: Wall Street veterans say they've never seen a fight like this. Noted hedge fund managers Bill Ackman and Carl Icahn have engaged in a heated debate about Herbalife's business model, with billions of dollars at stake. Ackman has taken a $1-billion "short position" against the company's shares, meaning he'll profit if the stock price drops. In a slick, multimedia pitch on Wall Street, Ackman contended that the company is a well-disguised pyramid scheme. He said the vast majority of the company's independent distributors make little money or lose money, while a fortunate few get rich off commissions they receive for recruiting others into the business. Ackman said he expects Herbalife's shares to hit zero. Icahn said he has purchased nearly 13% of the company's shares and planned to talk to executives about strategies to increase its profitability, including taking it private. Herbalife acknowledged discussions with Icahn but did not elaborate. The company insists its business model is completely legal. Herbalife said it sells products that help people live healthy lives while giving entrepreneurs an opportunity to build their own businesses.

Accomplishments: The company reported record sales and profit in 2012 and said it expects things to improve in 2013. It has mountains of available cash, pays a decent dividend and repurchased 15 million — or more than 10% — of its shares in little more than a year.

Challenges: Herbalife shares have been extremely volatile in the last nine months, plunging more than 40% in the days after Ackman's attack, and falling 20% in a single day in May after hedge fund manager David Einhorn questioned the company's business model. Herbalife has acknowledged it is under review by the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Federal Trade Commission released dozens of complaints it has received about Herbalife in recent years. Neither agency has confirmed an investigation.

Analyst opinions: Seven analysts have the stock as a buy or strong buy, while four have it as hold. The average one-year target price is about $58 a share.

Voices: "Our belief remains steadfast that Herbalife operates a perfectly legal multilevel marketing model that has proven particularly efficacious in the weight-loss category.... Herbalife's sustained growth and 30-plus year history in a highly regulated industry indicate a legitimate business [because] pyramid schemes are unsustainable." — Scott Van Winkle, analyst, Canaccord Genuity;

"Buckle up, it's going to be bumpy.... We are maintaining our overweight, but recognize that the stock is not for the faint of heart. We expect Mr. Ackman to continue to make noise on his short thesis, however, and for the potential for an FTC investigation to be an overhang on the stock for the indefinite future." — Brian Wang, analyst, Barclays Capital;

"It is clear that over time Herbalife is answering the questions that need to be answered and providing greater clarity around their business model — one that we see as simple but effective. We think it logical that, as these questions are finally answered to the investment community's satisfaction, the shares will trade, finally to the premium valuation we believe it deserves. The scarlet letter it wears today in the minds of the short seller community will be removed." — Timothy Ramey, analyst, D.A. Davidson & Co.

stuart.pfeifer@latimes.com

Read More..

Athletes cash in on California's workers' comp

SACRAMENTO — In his seven-year career with the Denver Broncos, running back Terrell Davis, a former Super Bowl Most Valuable Player, dazzled fans with his speed and elusiveness.

At the end of his rookie year in 1995, he signed a $6.8-million, five-year contract. Off the field he endorsed Campbell's soup. And when he hung up his cleats, he reported for the National Football League Network and appeared in movies and TV shows.

So it may surprise Californians to find out that in 2011, Davis got a $199,000 injury settlement from a California workers' compensation court for injuries related to football. This came despite the fact Davis was employed by a Colorado team and played just nine times in California during an 88-game career, according to the NFL.

Davis was compensated for the lifelong effects of multiple injuries to the head, arms, trunk, legs and general body, according to California workers' compensation records.

He is not alone.

Over the last three decades, California's workers' compensation system has awarded millions of dollars in benefits for job-related injuries to thousands of professional athletes. The vast majority worked for out-of-state teams; some played as little as one game in the Golden State.

All states allow professional athletes to claim workers' compensation payments for specific job-related injuries — such as a busted knee, torn tendon or ruptured spinal disc — that happened within their borders. But California is one of the few that provides additional payments for the cumulative effect of injuries that occur over years of playing.

A growing roster of athletes are using this provision in California law to claim benefits. Since the early 1980s, an estimated $747 million has been paid out to about 4,500 players, according to an August study commissioned by major professional sports leagues. California taxpayers are not on the hook for these payments. Workers' compensation is an employer-funded program.

Now a major battle is brewing in Sacramento to make out-of-state players ineligible for these benefits, which are paid by the leagues and their insurers. They have hired consultants and lobbyists and expect to unveil legislation next week that would halt the practice.

"The system is completely out of whack right now," said Jeff Gewirtz, vice president of the Brooklyn Nets — formerly the New Jersey Nets — of the National Basketball Assn.

Major retired stars who scored six-figure California workers' compensation benefits include Moses Malone, a three-time NBA most valuable player with the Houston Rockets, Philadelphia 76ers and other teams. He was awarded $155,000. Pro Football Hall of Fame wide receiver Michael Irvin, formerly with the Dallas Cowboys, received $249,000. The benefits usually are calculated as lump-sum payments but sometimes are accompanied by open-ended agreements to provide lifetime medical services.

Players, their lawyers and their unions plan to mount a political offensive to protect these payouts.

Although the monster salaries of players such as Los Angeles Lakers guard Kobe Bryant and Denver Broncos quarterback Peyton Manning make headlines, few players bring in that kind of money. Most have very short careers. And some, particularly football players, end up with costly, debilitating injuries that haunt them for a lifetime but aren't sufficiently covered by league disability benefits.

Retired pros increasingly are turning to California, not only because of its cumulative benefits but also because there's a longer window to file a claim. The statute of limitations in some states expires in as little as a year or two.

"California is a last resort for a lot of these guys because they've already been cut off in the other states," said Mel Owens, a former Los Angeles Rams linebacker-turned-workers' compensation lawyer who has represented a number of ex-players.

To understand how it works, consider the career of Ernie Conwell. A former tight end for the St. Louis Rams and New Orleans Saints, he was paid $1.6 million for his last season in 2006.

Conwell said that during his 11-year career, he underwent about 18 surgeries, including 11 knee operations. Now 40, he works for the NFL players union and lives in Nashville.

Hobbled by injuries, he filed for workers' compensation in Louisiana and got $181,000 in benefits to cover his last, career-ending knee surgery in 2006, according to the Saints. The team said it also provided $195,000 in injury-related benefits as part of a collective-bargaining agreement with the players union.

But such workers' compensation benefits paid by Louisiana cover only specific injuries. So, to deal with what he expects to be the costs of ongoing health problems that he said affect his arms, legs, muscles, bones and head, Conwell filed for compensation in California and won.

Even though he played only about 20 times in the state over his professional career, he received a $160,000 award from a California workers' compensation judge plus future medical benefits, according to his lawyer. The Saints are appealing the judgment.

Read More..

Dozens of stars rehearse day before Oscar ceremony

LOS ANGELES (AP) — Some dressed down in jeans and hoodies. Others looked camera-ready in suits or chic dresses and spiky stilettos.

But no matter how they looked, all of the stars who rehearsed Saturday for the 85th Academy Awards seemed excited about being a part of the big show.

They paraded through the Dolby Theatre in 15-minute increments: Meryl Streep. Ben Affleck. Reese Witherspoon. Richard Gere. Jennifer Aniston. John Travolta. Nicole Kidman. Jack Nicholson. And dozens more.

Each practiced their lines in front of an audience of show workers and awarded prop Oscars to rehearsal actors. They also scanned the theater from the stage, searching for their show-night seats.

"Oh, wow. That's a very dramatic picture of me," best-actress nominee Jessica Chastain said after spotting her seat-saving placard. "I'm looking at everyone's headshots. It's kind of incredible."

Affleck confessed his excitement from the stage as he looked out at all the famous faces expected Sunday.

"This is like the most memorable aspect of the Oscars," the "Argo" director said. "You see all these place cards (at rehearsal), then you come back and they're all here!"

Affleck also chatted backstage with the college film students who won a contest to serve as trophy carriers during the ceremony.

"I love that," he said. "It's super cool."

Travolta spent time with the students, too.

"I was there when that idea was born and I said it was the best idea they could possibly come up with," he told the aspiring filmmakers backstage. "And here you are!"

Travolta plans to bring his 13-year-old daughter, Ella Bleu, to the ceremony.

Kidman made rehearsals a family affair. Husband Keith Urban and their eldest daughter, Sunday, watched from the audience as Kidman ran through her lines.

She looked impeccable in a wine-colored dress and tall metallic shoes, but other stars were decidedly more casual. Kristen Stewart arrived in jeans, sneakers and a backward ball cap. (She also limped on an injured right foot.) Renee Zellweger also opted for comfort in jeans and running shoes.

The cast of "Chicago," including Gere, Zellweger, Queen Latifah and Catherine Zeta-Jones, injected their rehearsal with silliness. Latifah purposely over-enunciated her lines, and when a pair of rehearsal actors claimed an Oscar onstage and gave an acceptance speech, Zeta-Jones started to play them off with an imaginary violin.

"Get outta here!" Gere said with a smile.

Octavia Spencer, who won the supporting actress Oscar last year for her performance in "The Help," also had a little fun.

"I'm going to do a soft-shoe," she said, shuffling off stage.

Streep and Jane Fonda were each wowed by the set design. Fonda snapped a photo with her iPhone, and Streep marveled at how far the walk to the microphone was.

"All the way to here?!" she asked. "Oh my God."

Halle Berry literally stumbled during her first rehearsal, her pointy heel catching on part of the stage. She insisted on trying again.

"Woo hoo," she said. "Made it."

___

AP Entertainment Writer Sandy Cohen is on Twitter: www.twitter.com/APSandy .

Read More..