Legislators scrap law on taxing ratepayers

A new bill readdresses the taxes that utilities actually pay versus the taxes they pass on to their customers

Note: This article is not available online at The Oregonian.

By TED SICKINGER
May 14, 2011

After a six-year fight over a law to prevent utilities from charging ratepayers for taxes that the utilities don't pay, the Legislature has punted the issue back to utility regulators.

Senate Bill 967, passed by the Legislature on Thursday, gets rid of a complicated annual tax true-up that resulted in a surcharge or refund to ratepayers based on whether regulators determined that the utility had overcollected or undercollected from ratepayers to cover its tax bill. Instead, taxes will go back to being part of standard rate cases. The bill directs the Oregon Public Utility Commission to analyze all tax benefits, liabilities and credits, as well as a utility's corporate structure and tax payment history when setting utility rates.

The bill also directs the PUC to consider the effect of any merger on utility taxes.

The bill, if signed by the governor, effectively kills Senate Bill 408, which was passed in 2005 to protect ratepayers from phantom taxation. OPUC commissioner Susan Ackerman said she believes the new rate case treatment of taxes will achieve the original intent in a cleaner fashion. "We learned so much about the complications of federal tax law that we almost have a different staff," she said. "They will bring that knowledge to bear" during rate cases.

It was the PUC's implementation of SB 408, as much as the law itself, that generated so much controversy in subsequent years. Dan Meek, a Portland area lawyer who was instrumental in pushing the original legislation, said Friday that the original idea was to reduce the PUC's discretion to allow utilities to charge ratepayers for phony taxes. The PUC opposed the bill, he said, then sabotaged the law by adopting a methodology to calculate utilities' tax liabilities that was neither transparent nor confirm-able.

"What this bill does is once again give the PUC discretion to allow utilities to charge ratepayers for phony income taxes," Meek said. "I don't see any reason to expect them to be any different than they were in 2005 and earlier. This is a victory for utilities and a defeat for ratepayers."    Read more ...

Jane Mayer on the Obama war on whistle-blowers - In a must-read article, the New Yorker documents Obama's war on whistle-blowers, and growing legacy [Glenn Greenwald]

The always-expanding bipartisan Surveillance State - Three events of the last 24 hours demonstrate how individual privacy is destroyed while government secrecy grows [Glenn Greenwald]

Willamette Week Article on Use of Campaign Funds for Bar Tabs, etc. -

Perfectly Legal: How one lawmaker uses campaign money to subsidize his mortgage, pay his bar tabs and explore Canada.

Willamette Week
May 11, 2011
by Nigel Jaquiss

We have composed messages to the city commissioners, asking them to VOTE NO on Portland rejoining the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force (JTTF). You can use these as models for your own messages to the commissioners. Each message includes the email address for that commissioner.

Message to Commissioner Saltzman

Message to Commissioner Fish

Message to Commissioner Fritz

Message to Mayor Adams

We have not included Commissioner Randy Leonard, as he has already stated his opposition to rejoining the JTTF.to Portland City Council members

Joint Terrorism Task Force debate captures Portland's idiosyncratic attitude
March 10, 2011
by Brad Schmidt, The Oregonian

Protesters stormed into Portland City Hall on Thursday to deliver petitions to policymakers' offices opposing involvement in the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force. When the group couldn't get beyond a lobby security point, protesters began shouting "City Council, Come on Down!" Only Commissioner Randy Leonard appeared, helping a representative deliver the petitions and talking the group into moving back outside, where the demonstration began.

For confirmation of "Keep Portland Weird"-ness, look no further than the decade-old debate about the Joint Terrorism Task Force.

Nowhere else have city leaders limited their relationship with the FBI over civil liberties.

Nowhere else have activists protested involvement of a handful of police officers.

Nowhere else have discussions come up again and again, with packed City Hall galleries, flipflopping politicians and onlookers who jeer cooperative agreements with the feds.

And now the debate is back.

Protesters Rally Against Portland's Participation in the JTTF

by Rebecca Jacobson

Willamette Week

March 10, 2011

 

Attorney Greg Kafoury speaks at today's anti-JTTF rally  = = =>

Despite the cancellation of today’s City Council hearing on whether Portland should rejoin the federal Joint Terrorism Task Force, about 70 protesters still turned out at City Hall this afternoon to oppose the city’s participation in the JTTF.

Chanting “No secrets, no spies, we want our civil rights” and carrying signs reading “Stop FBI Harassment,” protesters said participation in the JTTF could jeopardize Americans’ civil liberties. They voiced particular fears about FBI infiltration of advocacy and minority groups, including peace and environmental activists and Muslim communities.

Protesters also expressed frustration at City Council repeatedly delaying a vote on whether Portland should rejoin the JTTF.

“They moved it in order to spread out the opposition,” said Philip Kaufman of the Oregon Progressive Party, one of the rally's sponsors. “They’re trying to disorganize us."

Protesters also circulated petitions vowing to campaign against any city commissioners who vote to rejoin the JTTF. The demonstrators entered City Hall at 1:30 pm—about an hour in to the rally—with the aim of hand-delivering these petitions. There, they were met by city Commissioner Randy Leonard, who told them the public hearing had been delayed after increased signs of cooperation from the FBI on finding a solution that would not require Portland rejoining the JTTF.

Leonard, who has opposed Portland’s participation in the JTTF, then gave the protesters some advice—perhaps in an attempt to dispel the crowd.

“We’ve received hundreds of very thoughtful emails,” he said. “We encourage thoughtful emails.”

by Dan Meek

As I predicted in early January 2011 (see the videos below in this blog), the U.S. Senate refused to reform the filibuster. The crucial decision was that of the Democratic Leadership not to challenge the absurd and unconstitutional "Senate rule" that requires a 2/3 vote of all members in order to change any Senate rule, even at the beginning of a new session.

Knowing that any reform would require 67 votes, Senators then voted on 3 reforms, knowing that all would fail anyway. The reform with the best showing was the Merkley-Udall proposal to require all filibusters to be "talking"--that is, Senators would actually have to hold the floor during the filibuster instead of merely sending a message saying "I filibuster." The current system allows literally thousands of filibusters to be happening at any time, and the Senate refused to change it.

Even the Merkley-Udall bill received only 46 votes, with 4 Democrats voting against it (Baucus, Pryor, Reid, Levin) and 3 not voting (Feinstein, Inouye, Kerry). Even the 46 voting "yes" to this limited reform knew that the vote did not matter, because the Democratic Leadership refused to allow them a majority vote to abrogate the 2/3 vote rule (which would have resulted if the President of the Senate (VP Joe Biden) had ruled in favor of a point of order that the 2/3 vote rule was invalid). The reformer Democrats failed even to offer that point of order.

So the Democrats failed to reform the filibuster. This is consistent with my belief that the filibuster serves them well. It allows them to claim to be progressive on issues and then consistently fail to achieve progressive policies, while blaming "the process." For example, nearly every one of the Democrats in the Senate last December claimed to be against extending the Bush tax cut on incomes over $250,000 per year (and certainly on incomes over $1 million per year). Yet, despite their 59-41 majority in the Senate (including Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman), plus the Presidency and a similar majority in the House of Representatives), they "failed."

At least that is the conventional wisdom: "They tried to stop the tax cuts for the wealthy and super-wealthy, but they failed." The conventional wisdom is wrong. In fact, they did not want to stop the tax cuts and so they extended them. They want progressive voters to believe, however, that they wanted to stop the tax cuts, so they blamed the filibuster (under which they claim to need 60 votes to do anything).

Without the filibuster, the majority Democrats in the Senate would be far more accountable to the voters. With the filibuster, they can continue to advance Republican causes (and thus continue to get big campaign contributions from corporate executives) while blaming "the process" for their predictable "failures" that are not actually failures at all.

Filibuster reform goes bust, by Manu Raju on Politito

Suppose you had a country that invades other countries because they think they may be in some danger. This strong country just happens to be the biggest arms dealer in the world, the runner up not even close. This country has over 800 military bases, (maybe as many as 1000) around the world and 0 foreign bases on its territory. This is a rich country that got its start by slaughtering the inhabitants and taking control of the vast lands. This country tortures its prisoners, jails more citizens per capita than any other nation.  This country will lock up those who cry for peace but honor those who lie, cheat and try to destroy all its freedoms. This country makes millionaires out of scoundrels and liars and the press is bought and paid for. The leaders say that we must go to war but stay back in their air conditioned halls of government and watch as millions of poor people are murdered or injured beyond belief. This country is not Germany of the 1930s or the U.S.S.R. of the 60s; not even Italy of the 20s; this is the United States of America of 2011. My country! I did not serve in the US Navy for this!

This is Part 2 of a 2-part interview. Part 1 is below.

Freedom Or Fear

An open letter from an Iraq War Veteran to the People of Portland, Oregon

My friends,

 In the near future, the Portland City Council will make a decision as to whether or not the city should again join the Joint-Terrorism Task Force. This decision could adversely affect the civil liberties of the People of Portland, and may lead to the unlawful surveillance of law-abiding Portlanders in violation of Oregon law and the Bill of Rights. In 2005, Portland withdrew from the JTTF at the behest of its citizens, who had no authority over the shadowy institution that federalizes Portland Police officers and removes their obligation to State law and replaces it with the Department of Justice’s Guidelines on General Crimes, Racketeering Enterprise and Terrorism Enterprise Investigations, which were released 3 year prior to the Portland withdrawal.

Thousands of Oregon homeowners will have their mortgages paid for up to one year or $20,000.  Oregon has received over $200 million from the federal government to help struggling homeowners, who must apply by January 14, 2011.

Visit www.oregonhomeownerhelp.org or call 2-1-1 (or 1-800-SAFENET) to find out if you qualify. The process includes an application and an appointment.  There are no costs or fees.

The Multnomah County application center is at the Doubletree Hotel (just off the Lloyd Center MAX stop). Feel free to stop by to learn more. Open Monday – Friday 9am – 9pm and Saturdays 9am – 5pm. Closed Christmas Eve/Day, New Year’s Eve/Day. Not in Multnomah County? Call 1-800-SAFENET to find out where to apply.