大卫礁庄士敦

由大卫礁庄士敦

是他自己所表达的意见。

在竞争激烈的市场中，经济学家争辩不休，谁承担企业所得税负担。它是业主，谁得到一个较小的净回报呢？或工人，使更少的人吗？或供应商，获得更低的价格？或客户支付更高的价格？

然而，美国经济在一个部门，答案是明确的。企业国有公用事业（主要是电力和天然气）和管道合作伙伴关系，所有这些法律的垄断，其所得税负担转嫁到客户。

现在，上周公布的一项研究，提供了强大的新的证据表明，这两个行业转换企业所得税负担利益。

这项研究是由税务司法，税务和经济政策研究所的公民准备。都基金会支持的非营利组织的税收制度有利于丰富和对大多数美国人的公司。

公用事业的收费价格，利率已知，规范行业的政治任命。嵌入在这些费率是慷慨的款项包括企业所得税和所有其他税项。太平洋煤气和电力，北加州公用事业，被授予4.31亿美元，以支付2007年的企业所得税，显示了一个由加州公共事业委员会的最后决定。类似金额获得批准，或在最后批准的过程中，以后的每一年，。

但是从2008年到2010年的三年中，PG＆E公司的母公司没有支付联邦所得税为4.8亿美元的利润约为1.7亿美元，根据联邦35％的企业所得税税率预期的总和。研究表明，相反，PG＆E公司收集更多的退款超过10亿美元，在良好的一部分，在2008年增加加速折旧，这使公司推迟到将来的税收归功于。

布赖恩Hertzog，PG＆E的华盛顿企业的关系的董事，他说，让该公司推迟到未来的纳税规则，意味着它可以立即用这笔钱用于新厂房和设备，以帮助支付。他说，花费少得多比在市场上的借贷，从而福利客户。

Hertzog有一个点。当客户支付他们每月账单他们在贷款的钱给PG＆Ë零利率，这是比在市场借贷便宜很多。但是，这既不是资本主义也不是市场经济。

市场选择投资，并设置了信贷价格。监管和税收制度的力量俘虏客户，使公用事业的免息贷款，拒绝客户从他们的钱用于其他目的，包括偿还自己的债务，这可能是比储蓄利率高得多的使用，使用该公用事业项目融资的钱。

强制圈养客户延长免息贷款，公用事业罢工，我作为一个微妙的形式合法化盗窃。

PG＆E的约为2.7亿美元的负担，受益的摆动是不是唯一的。 26个研究的大型公用事业付出了三年的平均增长率仅为3.7％，35％的法定税率10。半数的26个企业拥有的公用事业分析了钱还给政府，感谢推迟和避税的税收优惠，在非实用操作。只有四个支付超过10％的企业所得税。

奖杯，变成一个受益的税收负担，通用电气公司，其娴熟的税法和税收优惠的游说，是著名的，但Pepco控股公司，拥有垄断美国的资本和周围的电力。 Pepco的为期三年的税率是多少？减57.6％。 GE的只有零下45.3％。 Pepco说，支付的税收法律所要求的所有。为了确定这是真的。

这里的讽刺。 Pepco的最大客户，到目前为止，是联邦政府。因此，联邦纳税人和其他客户支付电率Pepco，假定约为309万企业纳税会流动的库房，只看到作为退款508万元税款流Pepco。哎哟。

约为8.17亿的税收利益Pepco享受 - 从它收集的税收，但没有翻身退款结合 - 几乎等于利润8.82亿美元Pepco的母公司，在同一期间报道。

这是一个古老的故事在Pepco控股。 Pepco控股在研究，2002年到2007年的前6年，税前利润949.2万美元。其上缴税金的现金是负116.4万美元，我的分析表明。所得税所支付的现金是比简单的措施，在税务司法研究的公民苦心详细检查。现金支付也往往低估了现实。

管道甚至juicier处理。根据1986年的税收改革法案，他们是豁免缴纳企业所得税，如果作为合作伙伴关系组织。然而，从布什总统时代的统治下，联邦监管机构，让他们收集的企业所得税，反正。这是合法化盗窃。

公用设施和管道如何转换成一个受益企业所得税的负担，不论是暂时或永久的吗？ 1，2，3容易。

1. 对监管委员会的政治任命官员，其中许多人来自并返回到公用事业和管道行业，要求客户支付的公用事业企业所得税测量，公用事业，如果是独立的公司申请自行纳税申报。
2. 大多数公用事业不独立，但控股公司的附属公司。
3. 各控股公司文件的税收返还，巩固其公用事业和非公用事业企业，使其能够捕捉一些额外资产或利润的公用事业税。

结果是很少或没有客户被迫支付实际上得到政府的税收。

这里有两个问题要问这种昂贵的事务状态：你为什么没有听到这个消息，他们正试图减轻您的负担，坚持从反避税的政治家和组织？谁将把公用事业和管道客户结束这种财富的被迫转移到公司的股东？

作者是路透专栏。是他自己的意见。

如何不被征税，把钱给王国的石油资源丰富的的阿布扎比和其世袭的统治者打你吗？

成本，如果你在生活纽约州，涉及到约14亿美元，或大约每户190元，与所谓的私人控股公司的经济发展协议， GlobalFoundries的建立奥尔巴尼附近的微芯片厂。

由于你思考这个被迫转移从你的芯片制造巨头，这是由控制阿布扎比的统治者谢赫哈利法斌扎耶德铝纳哈扬，记住， 阿布扎比表示，其公民享有世界上第三高的每人均收入，第三个比美国人高“。

在法庭上由一个较长时间的情况下，将测试的“公司福利” 的评论家纽约的长期业务补贴政策的处理芯片厂正在受到挑战。

问题是国家宪法的第七条，第8节，其中说，“国家的钱，不得给予或借给或任何私人公司或协会，或私人承诺的援助... ...”

选民于1846年颁布禁止赠送现金和信用卡公司后，纳税人得到坚持从赠品到铁路，那个时代的高科技产业的高债务。

在我看来，宪法语言提出了一个问题： 如何才能 纽约 州，迫使其公民，使这件礼物和其他较小的企业礼品，全纽约的数百？

国家科技巨头IBM 和 GlobalFoundries都要求纽约的最高法庭，以防止在审判中提出这个问题。

他们想要一个较低的法官所带来的诉讼解雇布法罗律师詹姆斯的Ostrowski ，谁是具有挑战性的GlobalFoundries的处理违宪的裁决，维护。

自由意志论的批评家

的Ostrowski，一个长期的企业补贴的自由主义评论家，认为作为一种礼物，与政治有关联的商界领袖到另一个漏斗纳税人的钱，同时避免激烈的市场竞争中，使每个人更坏，包括那些失宠的权力，。

主张国家的经济发展补助金，包括GLOBALFOUNDRIES的发言人特拉维斯布拉德说，在帝国的业务和创造新的就业机会，以克服成本高，国家财政支持是至关重要的。

问题是，这样的礼物缓解实际改革的压力，而不是加强系统从多方面采取有利于少数。这个问题需要在法庭上完整播出，这将揭露技巧用于解决宪法。

10月13日在奥尔巴尼的聆讯集中在未经审判的情况下是否可以驳回。在充分试验播出，解决的礼物问题，也将有助于人们了解多少他们的财务困境是由于市场资本主义企业的社会主义取代。

国家和地方政府全国迫使居民给予公司70亿美元，去年以现金支付，税收优惠和廉价的信贷，按纲凯教授 ， 密苏里大学圣 托马斯 。路易政治学家和作者鼓励投资的措施，对资金的全球竞争。

每户600美元左右。 70亿美元的预算不包括联邦赠品，享有广泛的两党支持和联邦政府规定，州和地方政府，只有少得可怜的数据一样。

法庭戏剧

在10月13日听证会在阿尔巴尼，芭芭拉安德伍德，国家总检察长，刚刚开始她的论据枯萎从法官的讯问下，当她来到罗伯特史密斯。

安德伍德断言1.4亿美元，不能是一个国家的钱禁止的礼物“，因为国家经济发展中介机构通过。她还具有此种资金“赠款或合约 - 为服务支付的钱”

安德伍德认为，很明显，只是在纽约的业务，是一种服务。

史密斯法官打断，并称它似乎想逃税，让国家手里的钱，然后做了礼物的状态不能直接到中介。

安德伍德辩称高等法院让公共当局给予资金和延长几十年的信贷公司。

法官史密斯在安德伍德的论点的核心缺陷，要求禁止的行为是否可以接受“只要你一直在做很长一段时间，你的状态？”

首席法官乔纳森李普曼随访，问：“哪里是行吗？是行，只是，我们已经这样做很长一段时间，它的良好的状态能够做到这一点，促进经济发展吗？“

谈到有关礼品的禁令以前的案件，安德伍德说，然后，像现在与 GLOBALFOUNDRIES ，国家不给钱离开而是使补助金是合法的，因为他们“将促进纽约经济。“

确定，安德伍德女士，你卖我那一个。

现在约100万美元的礼物给我和我的每一个纽约读者呢？毕竟，我们这些钱的使用也将促进纽约经济。

美国收入，贫困，养老金和慈善事业的新的数据都显示出一个共同的经济现实 - 妇女仍然越来越缩手缩脚。男士护理吗？

男子中位数在2010年的总收入为1.54美元，每一美元的女性接受，我的新的美国人口普查数据的分析显示。中位数 - 半赚更多，一半 - $三二一三七一年为男性，女性为20831美元。

忽略投资及其他收入， 中位数的男子支付了1.29美元，由2010年的妇女赚取美元。男性47715美元一年，妇女三万六千九百三十一美元，每周207美元的差额。

在非营利组织的主管和经理，男性比在相同的职业妇女。

妇女经营的100万美元的预算组织中的大多数，但预算增加妇女的行列萎缩。预算5000万美元的的非营利组织，只是六分之一运行一个女人，作为一个群体，这些妇女支付25个百分点，比男性低，根据在第11届年度非营利性的薪酬研究Guidestar，一个项目我长前敦促其创始人。

所有这一切都提出了一个问题：为什么男性，尤其是已婚男子，把这个吗？为什么不要求同工同酬的先锋队的男人？

这是不公平的，他们所喜爱的女性。在纯粹的自私条款来看，薪酬歧视限制一个家庭的资源。
附带福利？许多夫妇失去了第二次健康或其他福利计划的价值，因为在一个收入时代设计的计划往往是互不兼容。

两代人
我们一直在通过两代人，因为妇女开始打破狭隘随时向他们开放的白领职业清单 - 教师，护士，图书管理员，秘书。

现在有些妇女在较高薪蓝领工作，长有100％的男性配额，包括机械师，机械和装卸工作。

谁打的第一个妇女成为警察，现在退休了，一些在街上巡逻的孙女。妇女队长喷气客机，而男性为乘客服务的咖啡。我的妻子运行一个季度亿美元的慈善捐赠，工作从来没有一个女人会举行三十年来，她直言不讳地告诉。

虽然工资差距已经缩小了一些，官方公布的数据还显示，无论是销售人员或老总，服务器或外科医生，妇女的整体少于男性做同样的工作。

然而，妇女仍然比男性要差，尤其是中老年，更容易，新的人口普查数据显示。在单身女性中，九个生活在极端贫困，收入低于贫困线的一半。

女士杂志是一线格洛丽亚斯泰纳姆的眼睛之前，男性有相当处理。已婚的中产阶级男性往往控制了钱包，同时享受一个全职家庭主妇的人可能工作了几个小时的“零花钱”，他们可以花自己的乐趣在这里和那里。小儿童的母亲很少全职工作。

多余的钱的价格
已婚夫妇的孩子在2009年工作492小时以上，比1979年增加了15％，经济政策研究所的分析人口普查数据显示。多余的钱是有代价的：养育，耦合和社区参与的乐趣。

为什么男子悄悄放弃了所有这些福利，以及随之而来的权力，唯一的经济支柱，四分之三的额外的薪水？父亲，这可能意味着一个额外的薪水的一半或更少一次涵盖了托儿费。

由于大多数男性的工资一直持平至下降，需要得到两笔收入。国税局的数据显示，2009年的平均收入在1997年的水平时考虑到通胀。 ，新的人口普查数据显示，在2010年家庭收入中位数再次下跌。

妇女运动鼓励自力更生 - 不依赖于丈夫的善意和良好的卫生 - 以及自我价值的实现。同工同酬是中央。

价格的退休工资歧视秸秆，也因为少交意味着更少的晚年。在婴儿潮中，其中最年轻的，现在47，单身女性的退休储蓄不足的近两倍， 单身男性，雇员福利研究所的估计。

其中男性年龄65岁或以上，在2009年的平均收入是$ 25409，三分之二以上的妇女中位数为15,209美元，国会联合经济委员会报告在四月 。退休男性的平均养老金作为妇女（）的近两倍。

已婚男子和父亲可以帮助关闭这些经济的裂痕。请问自我利益激励我们的挑战对我们的妻子和姐妹，我们的母亲和女儿的持久经济上的歧视？或将性别收入和工资差距，仍然是围绕从现在两代？ （编辑：霍华德高乐）

图片：一名工人安装新的雪佛兰Cruze汽车仪表盘上的部分，因为它沿着流水线移动在俄亥俄州Lordstown，2011年7月22日，通用汽车科鲁兹装配厂。 REUTERS /亚伦Josefczyk

由大卫礁庄士敦
作者是路透专栏。是他自己的意见。

美国税法的辩论往往把重点放在最高的1％ - 他们的所得税，其税率的份额。反避税团体鼓励这个重点，目前占据示威者在华尔街和美国各地的拥抱。

问题是，前1％，是衡量一个非常误导人支付联邦所得税。它混合了医生和亿万富翁，掩蔽的中产阶级和富裕支付的税款。

每个人似乎都知道了，大约一半的美国人在2009年没有支付所得税，最高的1％支付约37％的所得税。

少于$ 75,000集体支付超过100万美元或以上的更多的联邦所得税的家庭，但有多少人知道？

或在未来的最低水平，15％，超过所有的资本收益税的政府收入加上两个括号，只适用于前2％的工薪族带来征税收入？

或者说，几乎一半的前1％少于50万元？或者说，五六个超过100万美元以下？

事实是，政府依赖于底部的99％，比前1％的联邦所得税得多。

2009年，收入最高的1％切入点略高于$ 344,000元。对大多数美国人认为是难以想象的金钱交易。但是，让我们的角度来看，在把。

最高层的悬殊
收入中位数的纳税人 - 一半以上，一半 - 略少于$ 33,000一年（和他们的平均调整后总收入低于$ 15,300，或低于300元每周）。收入中位数的纳税人将需要10.6年的前1％的低端赚取只要有人。

更大的差距存在于前1％。

前1％的人数以百计的数百万美元，也许是一些收入超过10亿美元，政府官方数据将显示当它是在两年内释放。

在经济上，那些刚刚进入前1％，与前1％的顶级第十的毫无共同之处。有人在为前1％的切入点，将需要29年之久，使10万美元，超过2,900年，价值10亿美元的。

点是，虽然所有前1％的人肯定富裕，绝大多数还是去工作每天。

最高的1％，或140万纳税人中几乎一半，为344,000元至500,000元。超过110万，999,999美元或更少。

依赖前1％的下半部的薪金约占其收入的三分之二。他们从资本微薄的收入，但主要依靠自己的劳动，让他们在与乔Sixpack比沃伦巴菲特共同的。

了千分之一
一个更好的措施比前1％，将1％的顶级第十。政府不突破这个群体，但灵光Saez，加州大学经济学家和其他。

Saez纳税申报数据的分析显示，到2008年，前一个在一个千年的纳税人在最近几年的平均收入介于每年$ 5.2万美元和7.5万。只要投资于公司债券多，会产生足够的兴趣的收入保持在1％的人。

此外，内部顶端的1％，最高收入者支付的最低税率。

2009年平均收入24％的税率最高的1％缴纳，国税局的数据显示。这几乎完全是由50万元至1亿美元的支付率。这些人100万美元，1000万美元的支付率较高，26％。但是，这些10万美元以上的的支付率显着降低，23.3％。

400强纳税人支付率要低得多。在2.7亿美元的平均收入，其有效的联邦所得税率是18.1％，2008年，我们有印度遥感卫星数据的最近一年。一个工人收入少于$ 90,000的自付比这更高的速率。

在一个拥有300多万人口的国家，400名纳税人是一分钟数。然而，这些400做出来的每一个美元，占全国的调整后总收入的1.3美分，自2002年以来，他们的国民收入中所占的份额几乎翻了一番。

继续把重点放在顶端的1％，会误导我们对谁支付联邦所得税。这一重点应该是对中产阶级和上层中产阶级，然后在1％的顶级第十。 （凯文Drawbaugh编辑）以及我们的税收制度是否是帮助创造财富和就业机会，或摧毁它们。

任何人想要了解持久性占据华尔街和全国各地的类似抗议，只需要在第一次官方数据看，于2010年的薪水，美国政府周三在互联网上发布。

从数字报道社会保障局对就业和薪酬的工资税，一个字，可怕的。

这些是重要的和强大的数字。可能的原因，政府没有宣布释放他们 - 到目前为止，我唯一的记者，他们写道每年 - 数据显示美国如何smolders而华盛顿拨弄。

有更少的就业机会，和他们少交去年，除在极顶，1万美元以上的人的数量增加20％，比2009年，。

的中位数的薪水 - 一半以上，一半 - 在2010年再次下跌，下跌1.2％至$二万六千三百六十四。该工程每周507美元，通货膨胀调整后的最低水平，自1999年以来。

任何工作的美国人数量再度下跌，去年超过50万以上，从2009年到小于1.504亿。

更重要的是，任何工作的人的数量已经下降了520万，自2007年以来，大萧条以来最严重的经济衰退开始时，继在2008年年底的华尔街大规模的纳税人救助。
这意味着3.3％的人曾在2007年的工作，或在每一个 33 30日，去赚取美元，2010年。 （ 更新 ：本专栏的原始版本使用了错误的比例。 ）

此外不再有任何工作增加大约4.5万人，由于人口的增长，通常会在三年内加入劳动力，你有接近10万工人没有发现甚至一个小时支付了520万人在2010年的工作。

6万亿​​美元
这些数字来自社会安全局，这过程的每一个的W - 2工资形式的医疗保险税数据库。所有工资，薪金，奖金，独立承包商净收入和其他赔偿为服务主体的医疗保险税增加一分钱。

工资，薪金总额在2010年来到6,009,831,055,912.11元。

这有点超过60万亿美元。扣除通货膨胀的因素，即低于前四年，到2005年，美国总人口的4.2％较小时几乎相同。

虽然中位数薪酬 - 中间点的薪酬阶梯下降，平均工资上升，因为在顶部持续增加。去年平均工资为三九九五九$，$ 46 - 或小于降压一周 - 与2009年相比。平均薪酬四万〇七百六十四美元，这是每周15美元，比2010年平均每周工资收入更在2007年达到顶峰。

100万美元或以上的工人的数量从2009年的78000上升到将近94000。不过，这仍低于一些前几年，包括2007年时，超过110,000名工人超过100万美元。
在最高层，在2010年的50万美元以上的工人人数上升至81，由前一年的72。但在本组的平均薪酬下降了450万美元，79.6万美元。

这些数字告诉我们的是，有一个选民在2010年的秋天，共和党的承诺，如果获得国会控制权，他们将专注于一件事回应：工作的原因。

不过，虽然共和党在众议院的多数席卷，这一承诺已被忽略。
不仅没有就业法案颁布1月以来，但众议院甚至不会带来表决总统奥巴马主办的就业法案。他的条例草案是远远不够完善，但承诺共和党立法，让人们回到工作在哪里？

相反的就业机会，在国会山的焦点免税利润的企业减税是举行海上，上继续布什的临时政府的税收削减 - 尤其是那些$ 1万或更多 - 和削减联邦开支，这意味着摧毁更多的就业机会在短期内。

与此同时，非金融企业坐在超过200万亿美元的现金 - 几乎每美国7000美元 - 没有地方投资获利。这笔钱甚至不能进行投资赚取的通货膨胀率。
所有这一切资本是坐在场边等待要投资的盈利机会，这将不是也不会发生，直到更多的人就业和工资上涨，对商品和服务的需求增加。

更多同样的方法我们已经在过去三十年和过去十年的大部分是不会增加的需求，创造更多的就业机会，或使整体繁荣。从长远来看，继续现行政策将使我们之间甚至最富有的不太富裕，他们会比在一个强大的经济与政府的政策，促进创造就业机会和不断增长的需求增长，从资本投资。

在此之上，是美国从未经历过的东西引起的社会问题，除了在大萧条时期， - 慢性，长期失业。

拥有数百万想工作的人没有一个单一的一天的一个工资不仅仅是一个人才和时间的浪费。它也可以改变社会对工作的态度，而不是更好。

数据显示，抗议为什么喜欢据华尔街如此迅速地获得了全国各地的势头，因为谁也无法找到工作的人试图把重点放在创造就业机会和处理的银行业，许多示威者指责为缺乏就业机会，联邦政府。

华盛顿官方的数字和变化当然看吗？还是选民需要改变他们选出的代表，如果他们想回普遍繁荣的道路上把美国吗？
（编辑：凯文Drawbaugh）

By David Cay Johnston
是他自己的意见。

Last year a fourth of the nation's oil pipelines earned excessive profits, at up to seven times the rates allowed these regulated monopolies, according to an explosive analysis prepared by a former general counsel for the US Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

R. Gordon Gooch, the former counsel, alleges in his Oct. 3 study, for instance, that Sunoco's Mid-Valley Pipeline, which carries crude oil from Texas to Michigan, earned a 55 percent return on assets. That is seven times its authorized profit margin, based on a calculation derived from an accounting report the company filed with FERC.

Three other regulated monopoly pipelines earned more than 40 percent on their assets, while another three earned more than 30 percent, an examination of their FERC filings by Reuters shows.

To put that level of profitability into context, overall nonfinancial businesses earned a 6.7 percent after-tax profit on their assets last year , the latest Bureau of Economic Affairs report shows.

In a competitive market, profits are unlimited except for the discipline of competition. Because there is no market to discipline monopolies, Congress created FERC, which sets prices, known as rates, for pipelines and some other energy monopolies.

FERC is supposed to balance the interests of customers and owners, making sure customers are charged only “just and reasonable” rates and that owners earn “just and reasonable” profits on top of recovering actual costs.

'JUST AND REASONABLE'
The test of whether that standard is met is revealed each year on a document, filed to FERC under oath, known as Page 700. Line 9 shows how much it cost a pipeline to provide service, including a generous allowance for taxes and its profit. Line 10 shows actual revenues.

The two lines ideally should match, except for minor timing differences. When they do, it indicates the “just and reasonable” standard has been met. If Line 10 is larger, it shows extra profits.

Last year, 47 of the nation's 175 regulated monopoly oil pipelines reported significantly larger figures on Line 10 than Line 9, as Gooch details in his analysis.

Gooch submitted his findings as part of a FERC rulemaking procedure. He was FERC general counsel from 1969 to 1972. Then he enjoyed a long career as a litigator in pipeline rate cases on behalf of oil companies, known as shippers, who pay pipeline companies to transport their liquids, crude and refined.

Having covered these issues for four decades, I think Gooch's position here is solid as can be.

The rulemaking at issue would affect how costs are calculated on annual Form 6 reports, of which Page 700 is the most significant part.

“If this rulemaking is adopted as is,” Gooch wrote, “there will be no effect on the unlawful revenues, no risk to the public utilities at all. In fact, their ability to collect unlawful excess profits with impunity may be enhanced.”

FERC spokesperson Mary O'Driscoll said that since Gooch's analysis was filed in a rulemaking proceeding, the commission will respond in the proceeding. She said, “The commission is not going to speak outside of the proceeding.”

None of the five FERC commissioners responded to my telephone calls to their offices. Only Sunoco Logistics, controlling owner of Mid-Valley Pipeline, returned my calls.

'APPROVED BY FERC'
The key defense to the excess profits charge is shown in what Sunoco Logistics told me. Spokesman Joe McGinn said its rates “are approved by FERC and follow all FERC rules and guidelines.”

And that is the scandal. Not just that companies are earning excess profits, but that FERC seems to look the other way and enable this.

Gooch argues that the rulemaking proceeding he commented on in his analysis would institutionalize excess rates and make it difficult for a court to stop oil pipeline owners from collecting more profit than is lawful.

Retired now, Gooch has become a full-time reformer trying to stop what he sees as rules designed to destroy the “just and reasonable” tenet of utility regulation.

The issues here are not academic. Unless controlled, monopolies can cause massive economic damage. Excess profits amount to a tax on the public for private gain.

Utilities have been promoting the theory of deregulation because they know it lets them, as monopolists, escape the rigors of both regulation and competition.

Consumers bear the burden of these excess profits every time they pump gasoline or fly in a jetliner.

Accounting reports show that oil pipeline profiteering has gone on for years under administrations of both parties.

FERC is a small federal agency whose decisions exert a broad impact on the economy, yet it gets little news coverage. Commissioners and key staff come from, and go back to, the energy industries they regulate.

FERC's budget is financed not with taxes, but fees paid by the energy industries.

On the “just and reasonable” standard, a controlling decision by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 1984 instructed FERC that “not even a little unlawfulness is to be tolerated.”

Yet in 2005 FERC granted the SFPP pipeline a rate hike nine times greater than its increased costs, Gooch wrote.

THE OCTOPUS
The SFPP pipeline is a corporate descendant of the railroad monopolies that caused California so much economic damage a little more than a century ago that they were known as The Octopus.

Despite the easy-to-spot evidence of profits that are far in excess of authorized rates, earlier this year the commissioners gave all 175 pipelines the freedom to raise rates by 6.8 percent per year compounded for the next five years.

Sunoco's Mid-Valley Pipeline was entitled to a profit of $3.9 million in 2010, but comparing the two lines shows an actual profit seven times that large, more than $27 million.

The latest annual pipeline rate hike was approved in a way that makes consumer challenges virtually impossible.

A general rate case would open every pipeline expense, including taxes and profits, to scrutiny. The commissioners avoided that by granting an indexed rate increase to all pipelines with no proof of higher costs required.

This latest index rate increase will generate $3.4 billion more in excess profits over the next five years, Gooch calculated.

Gooch said he filed his analysis because he believes that if the excess profits were brought to the commission's attention they would have to stop the profiteering.

He said FERC has failed to “redress years of toleration of unlawful conduct by some oil pipelines.”

By filing his report, he said, “it does not seem likely that any commissioner, past or present, would turn a blind eye to unlawful excess profits of some public utilities if the results of the annual report filings had been called to their attention.”

Here are a few of the questions Gooch's report raises:

What is the point of filing accounting reports, especially under oath, if their contents are ignored?

Why would a government agency help monopolies whose rates it sets earn more than just and reasonable profit margins?

Why have President Obama (and before him Presidents George W. Bush and Bill Clinton) appointed commissioners closely allied with the energy industry instead of consumer advocates?

Why has Congress not investigated FERC?

There are many more questions. This column will be pursuing answers about how FERC not only ignores, but actively helps, monopoly pipelines gouge the public. (Editing by Kevin Drawbaugh)

This column first appeared on Thomson Reuters News & Insight.

David Cay Johnston explains the twisted tax logic currently being used by politicians:

By David Cay Johnston
The author is a Reuters columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.

Political tax talk is becoming Orwellian: Secrecy is Democracy. Auditors Reduce Collections. Tax Cheats Will Be Caught With Fewer Auditors.

Let's start in Kansas, where the Lawrence Journal-World broke the news on Sunday that economist Arthur Laffer, father of curve-on-a-napkin tax policy, is advising the state on a new tax structure. The news is not so much that Laffer is getting $75,000 of taxpayer money, but that Governor Samuel Brownback wants advice only from business leaders; no wage earners allowed behind these officially closed doors.

In Albany, state tax authorities issued a statement asserting they already were pursuing the real estate tax cheats I wrote about last week . Never mind the statistics and lack of public enforcement actions. Maintaining this facade will be more difficult going forward as 300 newly pink-slipped auditors turn a drip of leaks into a stream.

Will Governor Andrew Cuomo, who wants to be president and has declared his eternal allegiance to lowering taxes on the richest New Yorkers, keep looking the other way? Will Lieutenant Governor Bob Duffy, who wants to be governor, mimic the boss? How long will only the little people of New York feel the full force of tax law enforcement under these two Democrats?

That question is a bit more pointed for Eric Schneiderman, the New York attorney general.

Assemblyman William Colton, an eight termer from Brooklyn, sent fellow Democrat Schneiderman a letter, and a copy of my column, asking for action. Will Schneiderman insist he can only act with Cuomo's cooperation, as his office hinted last week? Or will Schneiderman add a sharp edge to his carefully polished image as a tough law enforcer?

In Washington the mantra that spending, not revenue, is the problem was repeated endlessly last week. The idea that cutting tax rates, especially at the top, will pave a path to renewed prosperity is promoted by just about everyone in national politics except President Barack Obama and the few Capitol Hill Democrats who do not fear liberal as a political epithet.

Fact is, falling revenue is a problem. In fiscal 2011, which ended on Sept. 30, federal income tax revenues were smaller than in 2001, a recession year when the George W. Bush tax cuts began.

In fiscal 2001 the individual income tax brought in $994.3 billion and in just-ended fiscal 2011 it brought in an estimated $956 billion. That's 4 percent less money before taking into account 10 years of inflation.

Per capita the federal income tax brought in 31.5 percent less in real terms in 2011 than in 2001.

LESS IS MORE
The dominant political response to the fall in tax revenues? More tax cuts.

Bipartisan support is building for reducing corporate tax rates by at least 10 percentage points, from 35 percent to 25 percent or less. So is support for allowing repatriation of profits for companies that shifted them overseas to reduce taxes. The last time Congress did that, in 2004, it was sold with a promise it would create 660,000 jobs. Instead the benefiting companies fired more than 100,000 workers, several studies have shown.

There is also a bipartisan plan to further reduce already enfeebled tax law enforcement. The Senate plans to cut the IRS budget by $450 million, the House of Representatives by $600 million, meaning firing thousands of auditors.

Fewer auditors will not benefit the vast majority, whose taxes are taken out of their paychecks before they get their money. But it will give aid and comfort to high-end tax cheats, who rely on complexity, secret offshore accounts and lack of political will to chase them.

If cutting the government revenue department makes sense, then why not go whole hog and get rid of the IRS? That is what Herman Cain, a top rival for the Republican nomination, promises if voters send him to the Oval Office.

Cain's 9-9-9 tax plan would scrap the current tax code and replace it with 9 percent levies on corporate profits, on income and on spending. The already rich would only be taxed on their spending since capital income would be tax-free, part of the little known flat tax premise that labor should be taxed, but taxing returns to capital discourages saving.

Under Cain's plan, employers could not deduct the cost of wages paid to workers, not exactly a job creation scheme. Edward Kleinbard, the former chief of the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation, said the Cain plan is effectively a 27 percent payroll tax .

Cain's plan also imposes a one-time 9 percent tax on existing wealth, which may surprise his wealthy friends. He also would double-tax interest income, though, as Kleinbard noted, that must be a mistake.

Under Cain's plan workers would have far less to spend after taxes . Cain insists that critics don't understand. But as the chart illustrates, rich investors would pay less, helping their wealth snowball. The Cain campaign did not return calls seeking more information.

Give Cain credit though. Unlike Governor Brownback he is operating in the open. Unlike Cuomo, Duffy and Schneiderman, he is out front.

Unlike Orwell's Winston Smith, no one from the Ministry of Love will turn you in for beatings until you accept that 2+2=5. The oligarchs and their elected enablers are just trying to convince you that tax deals made in secret are democratic, lower tax rates mean more tax revenue and that the ministries of tax are doing all they can to find the cheats. (Editing by Howard Goller)

By David Cay Johnston
The views expressed are his own.

Pay close attention to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in New York and around the United States, especially if the protests endure through the cold months into the election year spring or if the New York police are ordered to violently end the demonstrations, which would ensure they spread.

The protests show signs of sparking a major change in US politics by creating common ground among people with wildly divergent views. The key to their significance will be whether they foster a wholesale change in political leadership in 2013 or whether Americans return a vast majority of incumbents in both parties at all levels of government.

Occupy Wall Street differs fundamentally from the many demonstrations I have covered over more than four decades. Instead of people with similar specific interests — anti-war, anti-rape, Tea Partiers — these demonstrators come with widely varying views, experiences and backgrounds, yet unite around a common theme: bankers are ripping off America.

Two secondary themes also emerge in talking to some of the hundreds of people occupying Zuccotti Park. One is that the super rich own the politicians. The other is that the news media, almost across the board, view events through the eyes of the rich.

The protests have grown from a few hundred people to the thousands who marched on Wednesday evening.

WASHINGTON BLAMED
Even Ben Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, sympathizes with the protesters. He told the Joint Economic Committee of Congress on Wednesday:

“Very generally, I think people are quite unhappy with the state of the economy and what's happening. They blame, with some justification, the problems in the financial sector for getting us into this mess, and they're dissatisfied with the policy response here in Washington. And at some level, I can't blame them. Certainly 9 percent unemployment and very slow growth is not a good situation.”

In a television interview Warren Buffett sided with them. While many of the demonstrators seemed ill-informed, he said, the “feeling is real and there is enough basis in that feeling that we want to get rid of that basis,” which he described as unfair taxes and lack of jobs.

Listen to the people packing Zuccotti Park, a privately owned urban space just off Wall Street, and you will hear common themes from libertarians and liberals, truck drivers and college professors, atheists and believers.

Some are articulate, others inchoate. But there is absolute agreement that the super rich, especially the financiers, are sophisticated thieves who steal not with guns, but something called derivatives.

Dan Halloran, a New York City councilman from Queens with an affinity for libertarians like Republican US Congressman Ron Paul, waded into the crowd and kept people interested in his views on the economy's failings and the need for markets.

“From what I saw on TV I would have thought that everyone here would be a communist, under 30, never held a job,” he said, describing that media image as cartoonish. He said people with whom he had spoken, including those with whom he disagreed fundamentally, were both eager to work and afraid, not knowing what happened exactly, but insistent that they needed work and that their elected leaders seemed not to care.

NO 'FAIR SHAKE'
Brendan Burke, a truck driver and punk rock musician who studied philosophy in college, said since the protests began almost three weeks ago, “I have heard a thousand different things people are concerned about — inadequate teacher pay, no jobs, the rich not paying their fair share of taxes and all of it was about how we working people are not getting a fair shake.”

Burke said he expected the protests to gather strength because “this oppressiveness has been going on for years; its quiet, the way the bankers constructed this mess — and nothing is being done to them.”

When I went down there on Tuesday, some asked me why no bankers had been indicted. Excellent question with no answer unless you believe the financier class exercises control over the government, enabling financial crimes through incomprehensible rules.

Each person I asked, including some in suits who came by for a gander, said they expected the mayor eventually to order the park cleared, possibly on the pretext of public sanitation. Never mind that the Constitution safeguards the right to assemble peaceably and to petition the government for a redress of grievances without a time limit.

New York's billionaire mayor found time and money to have police barricade the Wall Street bull, that bronze symbol of faith in growing stock prices. But Michael Bloomberg has spent not even a dollar on portable restrooms to help citizens exercise their constitutional rights while maintaining sanitary conditions in his fair city.

Aristotle taught, “Democracy is when the indigent, and not the men of property, are the rulers.” That ancient insight may be unknown to many of the demonstrators, but the concept imbues Occupy Wall Street, which has the potential to change America from what Aristotle would describe as an oligarchy back into a representative democracy.

PHOTO: A demonstrator sits near a make-shift tent during the Occupy Wall Street protest outside the Federal Reserve Bank in San Francisco, California October 5, 2011. REUTERS/Stephen Lam