As Robert mentioned, Northwestern saw a nearly three hundred percent increase in profits last quarter, the result of average Montanans dealing with the cold:

Mike Hanson, NorthWestern president and CEO, says the company benefited from an increased number of customers and colder weather.

Fortunately, Mr. Hanson probably doesn’t have to worry about the cold too much, as he can probably warm his house lighting money on fire. Hanson, you see, collected just over a million dollars in compensation last year, a fact not mentioned in the recent reporting about Northwestern’s profitability.

One doesn’t have to look terribly far to see how they may have increased profits so much. According to the Mike Dennison on July 13, they charge more for electricity than any other utility in the region:

NorthWestern Energy, whose latest rate increase was confirmed last month by state regulators, now has electric rates 20 percent higher than any other major utility in the region, an analysis by Lee Newspapers shows…That rate is 20 percent higher than the second-highest major utility electric rate in the region, which is 8.4 cents per kwh, charged by Black Hills Power in western South Dakota.
It’s also 70 percent higher than the region’s lowest-priced privately owned electric utility, which is Idaho Power Co., charging its customers about 6 cents per kwh.

On the bright side, while tripling their profits, Northwestern was crying to the PSC that it needed a rate increase, and they got it:

NorthWestern Energy customers will see a slight increase on their monthly bills.

That’s because a request for a 2% rate increase has been approved by the Montana Public Service Commission. The rate increase translates to $15 million per year for the utility company, trickling down to annual costs of about $18 more for electric customers and $25 more for natural gas customers.

Don’t worry, though, consumers, Northwestern promised the PSC that they would re-evaluate their need for increased rates in 2009:

As part of the deal, the company agreed to submit a new rate request in 2009, when the PSC can re-examine NorthWestern’s finances and adjust its rates.
Commissioners and their staff, however, questioned why they should take the deal largely on faith and ignore questions about whether NorthWestern needs any rate increase at all.

Even better for all of us is that this rate increase is kind of like a loan for the struggling power provider:

NorthWestern needs some additional cash flow to help finance investments in its utility operations, Wilson said, and the rate increase provides that money, sort of like a short-term loan.

I know it’s heartless to expect a good corporate citizen like Northwestern to fend for itself in the cold, hard world, but should monopolistic corporations really be receiving short term loans from average citizens, based on the promise that they will do they right thing in the future? Especially when the company is NorthWestern Energy? A company who avoided millions of dollars of tax liability in its bankruptcy, while paying millions to the men who ran the company into the ground?

Running NorthWestern Corp., one of Montana’s three largest utilities, has been a game of musical chairs since the company bought Montana Power Co. three years ago: a very lucrative game for top executives.

With the approval of the U.S. Bankruptcy judge, during the past three months NorthWestern has granted severance payments in stock totaling almost $17 million.

In all, NorthWestern set aside $44 million in stock to settle outstanding claims and lawsuits in its post-bankruptcy period.

It’s good to see that the most shameful economic trend of the past twenty years—the obscene transfer of wealth from poor and middle-class Americans to an emerging class of wealthy corporate managers is firmly entrenched at NorthWestern Energy.

That thought might help keep me warm this winter; it certainly heated up things today.

I never question people’s desire or motives of getting in and making a buck. And having been in the cattle business and having to deal in commodity futures, in my case I was never a speculator, I was a hedger, you always worry and wonder what’s going on on the other side.

This is precisely the danger of modern American conservative “principles.” It would be a consistent, if foolish, position to defend the idea of free markets, and conservatives like Rehberg fall back on this rhetoric when they are asked to rein in corporations. The problem is that adherence to free markets seems to end there for Rehberg. He doesn’t question the government’s interference when it means providing subsidies to oil companies, huge agricultural interests, and big donors.

In a sense, Rehberg is right. He is defending a certain kind of freedom, one in which corporate interests are free to take from the public coffers and free from scrutiny and oversight.

“I want the Finance Committee to be ready, to be ahead of the curve,” he said. “That’s why I’ve begun hearings, getting the facts out, pushing the edge of the envelope.”

As much as I’d like to believe that Senator Baucus is truly interested in protecting the the 47 million Americans without health insurance, I have to admit that it crossed my mind as I read the piece that Senator Baucus might just be saying this because he is running for re-election. After all, hasn’t he had a few decades in Washington on the Finance Committee to make this happen?

No, instead of being ahead of the curve on universal health care, he’s chosen to be ahead of the curve on incredibly irresponsible tax cuts, Medicare giveaways to giant pharmaceuticals, and protecting the economic interests of struggling farmers to make millions every year. While there certainly have been some positive steps from Senator Baucus, like his work on the SCHIP program, no one can seriously believe that he can be at the forefront of ensuring universal access to health care.

Consider what he said in 1992:

`No more scotch tape and baling wire,” said Senator Max Baucus, a member of the Senate Finance Committee, who spoke at the AAPS regional meeting in Great Falls, Montana, on June 20. “It’s time for fundamental reform, not tinkering.”

Although he does not believe that significant changes will occur in this session of Congress, he thinks they will not be long delayed. . .

Medical insurance as an employment benefit was an “accident of history,” the Senator said, a side effect of the Nixon wage- and-price controls. Increases in health benefits were not counted as a wage increase.

And today? 16 years later?

“Now is the time to seriously address health care reform,” he said. “It’s been kind of simmering around the edges for a while, but it’s close to reaching a boil right now….

“We will have insurance companies in America,” Baucus said. “We’ll have uniquely American solutions.

“Those (other) countries have a different history of the public sector providing health insurance. That’s their history, that’s their culture. We Americans are a younger country, and we’re founded on a principle of independence, on free markets.”

This story illustrates just what is so frustrating about Senator Baucus. He talks the right talk when it comes to Democratic issues, but when it comes to vote, far too often his decisions are the ones that benefit corporate interests, from the insurance industry to major banking interests, often at the expense of individuals.

Just short of 17% of Montanans have no health insurance, one of the highest rates in the nation, and much higher than any of our neighboring states. Promises aren’t going to get them to doctors, promises aren’t going to ensure that they can stay productive and healthy. It’s time to stop the press releases about leading, Senator Baucus, and time to start leading.

Senator Baucus could have such a profound impact on the lives of ordinary, working Montanans and Americans, if he’d invest real energy into health care reform, rather than just talk about it. All these of experience in the Senate don’t mean much if they haven’t taught him who he really represents.¹

1. Standard caveat: If you’re undecided, his opponents will be worse. Just sayin’.

The spectacle of Republicans in Congress condemning the action, however is perhaps more despicable. While comparing Yahoo to the companies that helped the Nazis conduct the Holocaust might have appeared to be a strong rhetorical stance for Representatives Chris Smith (R-NJ) and Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), one wonders if these two have any right to compare anyone else to fascists.

After all, Congressman Rohrabacher was responsible for this gem, while defending extraordinary rendition, an illegal, secret government program to round up suspected terrorists, take them to foreign countries and torture them:

Rohrabacher said if European countries did not cooperate with the United States and go along with whatever the Bush administration wanted, they were condemning their countrymen to death by not using extralegal methods to imprison terrorist suspects. When citizens attending the hearing, including members of Codepink Women for Peace and Veterans for Peace, heard Rohrabacher’s statement, they collectively groaned. Then, much to the shock and disbelief of everyone in the hearing room, Rorhbacker said to those who had expressed displeasure at his statements: “I hope it’s your family members that die when terrorists strike.”

Rohrabacher and Smith are both strong supporters of the Patriot Act, opponents of equal rights for same sex couples, in favor of making appeals in death penalty cases harder, and advocates of the Iraq War.

Oh, and both support electronic surveillance without a warrant in the United States.

So, if in the world of Representatives Smith and Rohrabacher Yahoo has become the Krupp Corporation, what exactly are they?

But I'm paying more for everything, right?
Nope. Prices are the local Safeway grocery store Deli (where, trust me, a great many low-income families shop) have not gone up significantly, certainly not the nearly 20% that minimum wage went up; moreover, Montana Safeway stores actually still are being given special exemptions from corporate pricing because wages are so much less in Montana than they are in Seattle, even though prices are in many cases the same.

Has unemployment gone up? Hardly! Helena unemployment is still around 2%, and my place of employment cannot hire enough employees to provide optimum staffing levels.
So…in the experience of a low-income worker, minimum wage increase has had all the advertised benefits, with none of the warned-about downfalls.

Last week I extended my thanks to a man with a Raise Montana jacket on.

Wal-Mart did rather set itself up for this one, by choosing not to stock CDs with a “Parental Advisory” label, they attracted the sort of people who would sue them over an errant swear word. However, if (and the chances are slim) the lawsuit succeeds, it is setting a distrubing precedent-

“It also seeks damages of up to $74,500 (£38,660) for every customer who bought the CD at Maryland Wal-Marts, and also naming record label Wind-Up Records and distributor BMG Entertainment in the legal action. ”

Essentially, not only distributing but also producing anything offensive is being treated as an infringment onto someone elses rights should they actually listen to what you produce, and moreover, selling such material to anyone is worthy of punishment if one of your customers disapproves. Exactly where does individual liberty fit in here? Granted, it took me the whole of three minutes to look through the lyrics on that particular CD and find the offensive word; god forbid parents do an elementary google search and then actually read through the lyrics of an album before buying it for their kids if they are so concerned.

Senator Baucus does offer the same kind of lip service that allows Democrats afraid of their own party to pretend to oppose this President, noting:

Fast-track authority should be improved as it is renewed, with better trade enforcement capability and better environmental and labor provisions. By making those changes, we can protect American interests, project America’s values, and help to create consumer classes capable of purchasing more U.S.-made goods. And as we address expiring fast-track authority, we must take on — head-on — globalization’s downsides, especially worker displacement and the unsustainable trade deficit.

No matter how many Democratic constituency groups Baucus tried to appease in that paragraph, it’s largely lip service.  Concern for the environment, labor, and consumers are precisely the kind of objections that cause responsible members of the Senate to oppose fast track. The up or down votes that TPA envisions are another example of expanded Presidential authority–authority we cannot extend this, or any President. 

Senator Baucus knows better. If there is any lesson of the past six years, it is that less oversight over this President is disastrous. Rather than abrogate his responsibility yet again, it’s time for Senator Baucus to stand up for the interests of American workers, the environment, and workers under the thumb of multinational corporations in the developing world.

The most important–and unfortunately the least debated–issue in politics today is our society’s steady drift toward a class-based system, the likes of which we have not seen since the 19th century. America’s top tier has grown infinitely richer and more removed over the past 25 years. It is not unfair to say that they are literally living in a different country. Few among them send their children to public schools; fewer still send their loved ones to fight our wars…

In the age of globalization and outsourcing, and with a vast underground labor pool from illegal immigration, the average American worker is seeing a different life and a troubling future. Trickle-down economics didn’t happen. Despite the vaunted all-time highs of the stock market, wages and salaries are at all-time lows as a percentage of the national wealth…

This ever-widening divide is too often ignored or downplayed by its beneficiaries. A sense of entitlement has set in among elites, bordering on hubris. When I raised this issue with corporate leaders during the recent political campaign, I was met repeatedly with denials, and, from some, an overt lack of concern for those who are falling behind. A troubling arrogance is in the air among the nation’s most fortunate. Some shrug off large-scale economic and social dislocations as the inevitable byproducts of the “rough road of capitalism.” Others claim that it’s the fault of the worker or the public education system, that the average American is simply not up to the international challenge, that our education system fails us, or that our workers have become spoiled by old notions of corporate paternalism…

The politics of the Karl Rove era were designed to distract and divide the very people who would ordinarily be rebelling against the deterioration of their way of life. Working Americans have been repeatedly seduced at the polls by emotional issues such as the predictable mantra of “God, guns, gays, abortion and the flag” while their way of life shifted ineluctably beneath their feet. But this election cycle showed an electorate that intends to hold government leaders accountable for allowing every American a fair opportunity to succeed.

If the Democratic Party wants to regain the working class in this country, and more importantly, earn their support, these are the kind of speeches and editorials they need to be offering.

We have an obligation, too. We can’t allow the Democrats to just take their place at the corporate trough now that they are in power. America needs a party that represents the majority of this country, the people that work just to pay their mortgages, send their kids to colleges, and pay the bills.

The plutocrats can fend for themselves.

However, explain this.  Exxon Mobil’s profit is up 35%.  Excuse me?  But here is the item of interest that really makes me scratch my head:

In a surprise move, the company boosted its capital spending forecast for the year to $20 billion, citing additional exploration and production opportunities.

Now, I realize I am an idiot liberal-corporate-hater-socialist (or whatever you want to call me today), but if there is ADDITIONAL exploration and production, doesn’t the market demand that the price go down?

Any corporate apologist care to pull those nose out of their Ayn Rand novel and explain that one to me?

What does The Economist say about the estate tax?

IT DOESN'T IMPACT FAMILY FARMS OR SMALL BUSINESSES

This is nonsense. A study by the Congressional Budget Office shows that in 2000 (ie, before the recent evisceration) only 1,659 farms and 485 small business were liable for the estate tax, almost all of which had sufficient liquid assets to pay it. The rest can stretch their tax payments over many years.

WEALTH IS INCREASINGLY CONCENTRATED IN THE HANDS OF A FEW, AND THE TAX COULD HELP SOLVE THE SOCIAL SECURITY MESS

The eve of the baby-boomers' retirement seems an odd time to abandon a small, but significant, source of tax revenue. If the tax permanently raised 0.3% of GDP, for instance, it would fix about half the hole in Social Security, the public pension plan. And with income becoming ever more concentrated among America's richest—since 1980, the share of overall income going to the top 1% has doubled from 8% to 16%—it seems an odd time to abandon the country's most progressive tax.

TEDDY ROOSEVELT LIKED THE IDEA

It was introduced, in part, to avoid excessive concentrations of wealth, a rationale now barely mentioned in the debate. Teddy Roosevelt argued that the transmission of vast fortunes between generations threatened to create a permanent aristocracy and, moreover, ruined the characters of the undeserving heirs.

HEY, WHY NOT HELP THE MIDDLE CLASS, WITH PRODUCTIVE INVESTMENT?

If America wants to maximise national saving, it should keep the tax and reduce the budget deficit. If productive investment is the aim, what about eliminating the mortgage-interest deduction, the vast subsidy that encourages Americans to buy houses rather than invest in productive assets? That would also raise revenue and even make the tax code fairer. Sounds like a winner, except in a country where spin and prejudice drive the debate.

Postscript: If Coobs calls The Economist liberal, I'm not liable for my actions.