Happy B-Day, Erick!
October 28th, 2006
(lifted sans permission from jambands.com — so sue me)
To my favorite fired reporter and incessent writer, who is so fair, objective and balanced that everyone wants to strangle him, way too Barneyesque in the face of political perversity when the Scorpio sting is long overdue, much maligned as the foiled operative in the Bachman campaign, the ’08 Rock Star Presidential candidate of G&D (FEITCTAJ) Party, and source of the most hilarious communications, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!
May you fly right, have many more, and not need your attorney-on-retainer for a long time!
So everyone out there in Rice County and 2CD, y’all honk, wave, and holler “Happy Birthday” and be sure to give him the finger to keep it balanced!
Bark Back for Hatch/Dutcher!
October 27th, 2006
Luchelle Stevens, of the State Executive Committee, wants you to know about a great event coming up on Sunday…
Bark Back for Hatch/Dutcher!
A furry fundraiser for you and your dog!
Sunday, October 29
1:00â??3:00 pmAt Downtown Dogs; West Wing, 821 2nd Ave North, Minneapolis 55405
(one block south of International Market Square)
Join our co-hosts and their two-legged friends in helping elect Mike Hatch for Governor and Judi Dutcher for Lt. Governor.
Buffy, Laddy, and Bella Hatch (and Mike & family)MiloDutcher (and Judi & family)
Biscuit (and Vice President Walter Mondale & Mrs. Joan Mondale)
(Senator Becky Lourey)Kirby Franken (and Al Franken)
Cosmo Hartnett (and Dan)
Zoe Stevens (and Luchelle & Robbie)
Oscar Fynboh (and Paula)
Frida Wetterlund (and Pam)
Kirby Humphrey (and Hubert â??Buckâ?)
Zeb Gaskins (and Keesha)
Theo and Tshanit Elliott- Katz (and Geri)
Lizzie Ledger (and Rhys & Andrea)
Diego Morillo-Stiles (and Javier & John)
Max Kelly (and Tom)
Sebastian Senese (and Dick)
Bailey Flanagan (and Peggy)
Dylan Bischoff (and Sara)
â??Treatsâ? for canines, snacks and refreshments for those who love them.
Suggested Donation(Nobody Turned Away for Barking More, or Less)$25 $35 $50 $100
RSVP: hounds4hatch@hotmail.comPolitical Contribution Refund:Individuals can receive $50 and couples can receive $100 per year refunded by the state of MN.
Prepared and paid for by the Minnesota DFL, Brian Melendez, Chair. Not authorized by any candidate or candidateâ??s committee.
Revenue Stabilization Agreement
October 27th, 2006
I have this feeling about the proposed deal between Red Wing and Xcel. It’s been in the works for a year and a half now, and is due to be approved. It was on the last Council meeting agenda until I raised this little problem — the copy on-line was missing all the odd pages, and it’s hard to comment on something that you can’t read! So they did continue that…
In the meantime, now I’m starting to go over this and there are a few things that jump out.
1) The “valuation” of the property, a 1,060MW plant, is listed at $400,000, which is 1/4 of the cost of the 600MW Big Stone II plant. It seems at minimum, it should be twice that. Apparently valuations can be challenged, and ARE challenged because they’re regarded as arbitrary, there’s not a concrete formula used. Valuation is in the Tax Statements in the Exhibit, and can also be found using the PIN at the County site. Go to Property Information and then Property Tax Information (but I’m getting “ERROR”).
2) There’s this out for large capital expenditures. Extraordinary Investments, para. 7. Ummm… this is an aging plant, and is in the process of being refurbished, and it seems it will be, in large part, prior to relicensing. Steam Generator I has been replaced, and Steam Generator II is on the way (or done?), turbines are going to be replaced, and it seems that by not counting the increase in value, what they’re doing is restoring the major components and then those would not be included in the valuation. Sure, that’s good for Xcel, but what does it do for us? They’ll end up with a like-new plant with a $400,000 “value.” Because there is an exemption for these costs, those agreeing to this deal should have a replacement schedule with costs, so they know what they’re waiving. It seems to me that if this agreement was not in place, the valuation would rise, the gross valuation would rise with these expensive replacements, even if the rate itself goes down.
3) Isn’t there an inherent value in relicensing and in avoided costs when they can use this plant and not build another? Like avoiding costs of around $3 billion, using Big Stone as a guide?
4) Though the agreement is predicated on continued legislative efforts to restore the tax revenue, through any number of means, and the agreement allows for these continued efforts, assumes it, yesterday Sen. Steve Murphy was very clear that he had no intent on addressing this legislatively, “that would be going backwards.” If his constituents are counting on his help on this, on his supporting them and not his employer, Xcel, we have a problem here.
There are a few things to weigh. I would guess that what Xcel is doing is planning to make improvements and not have to account for the benefit they receive, only that they can deduct the cost. They are positioning the plant for relicensing, and I’d bet they are also positioning the plant as a “stranded cost” a la deregulation, where we pay for the privilege of imprudent PUC decisions to invest in infrastructure. And I can’t imagine they are doing this out of the goodness of it’s radioactive little heart, so they must gain, and not have their gain recognized in a way that cost them anything. So is this a set up we want?
Here’s the power point that explains the deal:
Here’s the deal itself, in several parts because it wouldn’t upload:
city-council-agenda-report-resolution-oct-23.pdf
(Agreement still too big, on to Filezilla, maybe posted soon)
State House 28A and SD 28 and CD2
October 26th, 2006
Sandy did very well, and presented as the seasoned and experienced candidate that she is. She was articulate on issues and really said something (and whooo-boy, do I disagree with her on a couple of things, but we’ve agreed to disagree… ahem… until I have to bang on her door at the SOB and then we’ll have a cat fight or two) and I’ve got a lot of notes that I’ll get posted tomorrow. But one hting stands out — Iocco’s bizarre demand that Wollschlager call radio stations to have an independent expenditures ad pulled — and I hope that people listening and there in person understand that it is completely beyond a candidates’ control. He also took an example she gave of quickly turning away an offer of “dirt” and twisted it into an example of her playing “negative politics” and that kind of manipulation I HOPE shines through exposing the nature of his character. But that’s what people do when they’re losing.
Now this one, oh, my. Had a brief confirmation of Murphy’s position on the Utility Personal Property Tax cuts and whether he’d work to restore the rates, HE WON’T, “that would be going backwards,” and I need to do a bit of background before I put all that up — it’ll be a separate piece on Utility Personal Property Tax. How he gets elected I do not understand. But the other Steve is so clueless and petty, and obsessed with this Gay Marriage amendment, wants to nail Murphy on his refusal to bow to these bizarre special interests (just what on earth is their interest, anyway?) What I know about Steve is enough to make me not vote for him… yes, there are two Steves, and one I know a lot about and one I know litlte about, but what I do know about each is making me ill. I’ve been able to remove that “ice pick in the brain” feeling, but my gut is still turning… more later, when I get the stomach for it. (plus, to add insult to injury, Murphy used the code words for including hydro as “renewable” though the uninitiated wouldn’t have noticed). Drazkowski was also behaving like a loser, and much as I love to see someone slapping up Murphy, they don’t do it about the right issues, and in this case, it was just stupid grandstanding that did not work. But again, I do wonder about voters’ ability to discern.
And then there’s this one, once again at issue is voters’ ability to discern:
Well, let’s just say that Terry Rogers was his usual self, and, when I cornered him about her deficient website, he confidently stated that Rowley does indeed have “Issues” and “Position Statements” posted. Thinking that she may indeed have posted something since I last registered that complaint, I said I’d look. Here’s what’s there: Rowley “Issues” This does not convey an understanding, it’s saying a lot of nothing. There’s a world full of resources, but here’s what we get — here’s a hint Terry — it doesn’t say anything:
Issue: Energy Independence
American innovation and invention must lead.
As long as we depend on Middle Eastern oil, we will be involved in Middle Eastern conflicts and invite the wrath of terrorists everywhere. As long as we are held hostage at the gas pump, our economic growth will be less and less guaranteed. As long as we must drill deeper into habitats to sustain our growing energy needs, we will continue to deface many of the remaining pristine areas we share. And as long as we continue to embed our atmosphere with fossil waste, we will incur increasingly destructive natural disasters similar to the record number of devastating hurricanes endured this year.
A new energy strategy is one of the 21st century’s most urgent causes. Emerging powers such as China and India will invariably demand a growing percentage of the global energy supply, and the status quo simply is not equipped to meet tomorrow’s demand. How we resolve this impending challenge will have a profound impact on our environment, economy, and national security.
We have never backed down from a challenge, and with our innovative abilities America can lead the world into a more secure energy future. However, today America is following because our policymakers do not have the vision to guide us. I believe this century can be the century of American global leadership for new technologies that are environmentally sustainable and will free us from dependence on foreign states. In the short term, we must undertake greater conservation and fuel efficiency measures. The energy of the future is in sustainable fuels like biomass, ethanol, wind and solar power. It is time for a new vision of America, not as a dependent energy consumer, but a trailblazing energy creator.
Tell me, what will she do to stop new coal plants from being built? What will she do to pull back FERC transmission siting authority? What will she do, not to enhance the carbon trading market, but to stop generation of CO2 — changing lightbulbs just won’t do it! And how will wind generation lessen our dependence on “foreign oil.” Will she champion a permanent wind PTC? This is just not sufficient for a Congressional Candidate.
Oh barf… When’s the next plane to Costa Rica?
City Council race in Red Wing
October 26th, 2006
Two candidate forays in one day!
There are times when this all drives me insane and I want to pack up the doggies and split to Costa Rica, where even if it’s as bad, at least I won’t understand it until I”m fluent! This “candidate forum” process, which does not allow for redirect, and lets candidates get away with non-responsive and non-sensical mumblings and strongly worded statements — no follow up at all — aaaaaaagh, it’s just all too much! It was all I could to do keep from jumping up, “OBJECTION!!!” And then there’s “assumes facts not in evidence.”
Yeah, I’ve got a bee up my bonnet. It’s about Utility Personal Property Tax. Why? Well, better read my Primer, which has links to a lot of good information and primary documents on this: Utility Personal Property Tax for Local Governments Because Xcel continues in its dogged persuit of nothing short of elimination of this tax in one way or another. I’ve reviewd this “agreement” between NSP/Xcel and the City, I’ve experienced several other agreements with NSP/Xcel where there was something else, something more, going on. I’ve had numerous conversations over the years with Brad Johnson, former County Auditor, about personal property tax. Earlier this week, I had a good chat with Marshall Hallock after approval of the agreement was delayed because they didn’t have it all there for the public to review for the hearing, all the odd pages were missing! Anyway, my talk with Marshall allayed my fears… until today…
For City Council candidates, here’s what I want each of them to ANSWER, not blather, but ANSWER:
Do you support restoration of Utility Personal Property Tax?
If no, why, and how would you replace this revenue?
If yes, why, and what would you personally do to restore it?
Why am I disgusted? First, when this question is not asked, the implicit assumption is that the tax rates will go down and we’ll get screwed — NSP will again unilaterally finagle this tax cut and leave the City (and County and School District) high and dry. One candidate, Joe Kruger, went so far as to say that he doesn’t know of any other community faced with such a dilemma — EARTH TO MARS — this has an impact on ALL communities across the state, and ones like Becker are affected even more severely than Red Wing! Utilities are regulated, and they generate not just electricity, but profits. More important, they built this nuclear plant after making a deal with the community, that they would pay utility personal property tax. In 1994, they pile people in busses to go up to the capital and lobby and lobby for “keeping the plant open” and “keeping the tax base.” Before the ink is dry on the 1994 dry cask legislation, they’re in court fighting to cut that very same tax. Then over the last decade, they’ve been trying and succeeding in cutting it legislatively, and they’ve been trying and succeeding in cutting it through the Dept. of Revenue rules. Here’s the Rules: Minn. R. Ch. 8100. And once more with feeling, here’s a “must read,” the House Research Primer on Utility Personal Property Tax, written by Mikey Bull, and others (OH, NOOOOOO, it’s been changed, revised, and no Mikey, damn, can’t post his photo with Ray for target practice), anyway, here’s the NEW & REVISED PRIMER ON MINNESOTA’S PROPERTY TAXATION OF ELECTRIC UTILITIES.
What is so difficult to understand about the fact that utiltiies remain regulated? THAT HAS NOT CHANGED!
OK, City of Red Wing council candidates, I’m going to leave messages with all of you to determine:
Do you support restoration of Utility Personal Property Tax?
If no, why, and how would you replace this revenue?
If yes, why, and what would you personally do to restore it?
What’s so hard about these equations:
Plant = Tax
Build Plant = Pay Tax
Extend Life of Plant = Pay Tax
Eliminate Tax = Shut Down Plant
I mean really, who has the power in this situation? They want to relicense this plant because it is very, very profitable for them. What gives them the right to unilaterally change the deal? What will they do, move it somewhere else (please!)? Each time we help them keep it open, help them get more casks, help them relicense, and letting them operate in our community, each time they’re screwing us over by cutting that tax.
Hey, NSP, we do indeed get it. We’re getting screwed, and we’re not getting off!
Nope, this sorry state of affairs will not do!
Now, will these folks collectively stand up?
