Stan Geiger

PSO: Ripping People Off Again

KOTV took a look at PSO's desire for more money this evening. The station gets kudos on this one, as the reporter noted PSO's parent company, AEP, posted Q1 '04 earnings of $278 million, or 70 cents per share, and posted Q1 '08 earnings of $573 million, or $1.43 per share. The company's profit has doubled in 4 years.

Understand, we're not talking revenue here; we're talking bottom line profit.

A PSO spin doctor said we should pay no attention to the man behind the curtain. AEP profits and PSO's request for a huge rate hike are unrelated, he said. The company, he said, makes no money from fuel.

Let's see, AEP buys fuel and uses it to make electricity. Then it takes the electricity and sells it to customers. That transaction results in huge profits. But AEP makes no money on fuel.

What a ridiculous contention.

I took a quick look at Charles Schwab's website and figured I would augment the information provided by KOTV.

AEP has a market cap of $17 billion.

The company is showing trailing 12-month earnings per share of $3.47. The company has 401 million shares outstanding, so it has netted $1.4 billion over the past 12 months.

Broker ratings on the company are stout. Schwab, on a scale of A to F, rates AEP a "B." Reuters gives the company an "outperform" rating. S&P, on a scale of 1 to 5 stars, gives the company a "4-star" rating. Both Argus and Goldman Sachs rate the company a "buy."

The company pays an annual dividend of $1.64 per share, which means it is passing out $657 million per year in cash to shareholders.

Does AEP sound like a company in distress to you?

AEP investors have done very well. They've enjoyed a 5-year total return of 110 percent. The 1-year return, however, is not so hot. Over the past 12 months, investors have drawn a goose egg. And that might go a long way toward explaining things.

Of the 401 million outstanding shares, 73 percent of them, or about 292 million, are held by institutions. AEP---like most major corporations these days---is mostly owned by hedge funds, mutual funds, pension funds and private equity firms. Heavy hitters, in other words. Heavy hitters don't like it when they don't make money.

PSO's proposed rate hike hit the wire yesterday. AEP stock closed up today---on volume 50 percent above its 10-day average.

AEP doesn't need more money; AEP wants more money. The company wants more money because its wealthy investors want more money.

Given that knowledge, how good do you feel about paying $200 or $300 more per year for your electricity?

PSO Drops a Bomb

KOTV reported this evening that PSO, citing higher fuel costs as its excuse, is looking for a rate hike that would increase the average customer's bill by a staggering $17 a month. According to my calculator, that's over $200 a year.

PSO has over half a million customers, so that's over $100 million to the company annually. Last I looked, AEP---PSO's parent---is showing a billion dollars a year in bottom-line profit. Yet every time PSO incurs a cost, whether it's an ice storm, burying lines or fuel, ratepayers eat it.

The electric company is getting as bad as bankers, insurance companies and education.

Speaking of Mr. Ed, I bet people are feeling a little better about turning down TCC's "cup of coffee" property tax increase now.

Interesting timing on the PSO announcement, by the way. I mean the company could have announced its plan to seek a rate increase last week. Instead, it waited until after the TCC vote. As it was, less than 10,000 people voted for the tax increase. I bet a lot of the yea-sayers would've voted the other way if they had known they were facing a huge increase in their electric bills.

It seems there is a lesson to be learned here. You never know what's lurking behind the next tree, so don't vote for tax increases.

KOTV and Grade-A Bullshit

So TCC's tax hike proposal went down to defeat, and it took political-educational complex damage control less than 24 hours to engage. KOTV ran a story tonight telling us all what a mistake we made, and how poor folks are going to suffer, and how the freakin' world is going to come to an end.

I would expect better from the top-rated newscast in the market.

KOTV reported yesterday's election marked the first time in TCC's history that voters have turned down a request for more money. One time in 38 years, and we're all doomed. Please.

Maybe KOTV needs a little guidance. I'll try to oblige.

KOTV, if you would like a TCC topic to discuss on the evening newscast, tell me how much President McKeon is getting paid. The Tulsa World, of all sources, reported McKeon's predecessor and mentor, Dean VanTrease, was pulling down an annual pay package worth a quarter of a million bucks 5 years ago. Tell me how much taxpayer money VanTrease's bitch is putting in his pocket today.

I'll go just a hair further, for now, though I won't get into detail. I'm just going to throw out a name, and anybody that wants to offer an anonymous comment may feel free to do so. The name is Cindy Hess.

I kind of figured this war, this battle at least, was over. But since KOTV reported TCC is planning to bring the measure up again in a few months, I reckon it ain't. That's cool. I've got a round or two left in my clip.

Interesting Election Day

Most interesting, indeed. A 19-year-old kid beat a status quo politician in the race for mayor of Muskogee. Moreover, the vote wasn't even close; the kid won in a landslide. At the same time, TCC, asking for $76 million in debt plus a permanent property tax increase, was rejected on both requests---rather soundly.

If I were a politician or an educator, I would pay very close attention to what the people said on May 13th. The message, in a nutshell: We're fed up.

There's a fellow named Obama, not far removed from being a state legislator, that is on the verge of securing the Democratic nomination for president. And all he's had to do to get there is roam around the country shouting the words, "change, change, change."

Muskogee isn't a major metropolis, but it's not exactly a one-traffic-light town, either. When given a choice between a fellow that had served 3 terms as mayor in the past and a college freshman, 70 percent of voters decided to take their chances with the kid. That speaks volumes.

I have been writing in complaint of the tax-gobbler we call public education for over 10 years now. I was beginning to wonder if I would ever see the day, but I'd say Tuesday's vote is a very clear indicator that people have finally had enough of education's constant demands for more and more and more.

On the debt issue 55 percent of voters said no. On the permanent tax hike 57 percent of voters said no. Less than 10,000 people were willing to say yes on either issue---not even for what the World called a "modest" tax increase. TCC, simply put, got body slammed.

It might well be the gravy train on which educators have been riding for 20 years is coming to a stop.

Politicians that want to stay in the game for the long haul had better get used to the idea of doing what the people want done as opposed to doing what benefits them.

Educators had better get used to the idea of giving up extravagances like six-figure salaries for chair jockeys, free vacation trips, free cars, free houses, fat bonuses and ridiculously exorbitant retirement benefits.

Lord knows it's high time---on both counts.

World Endorses Tax Hike Who Woulda Thunk It?

The bonehead editors at the Tulsa World, in this morning's edition, called for a yes vote on the TCC tax. That news should shock no one. The World endorses every tax hike proposal, period.

I suppose it is a newspaper's prerogative to espouse the view that everybody should be in an 80 percent tax bracket, but it would be nice if they came up with something new every now and then. This morning's editorial was full of the same tired drivel that appears in every World tax hike endorsement.

The writer threw out the old 'cup-of-coffee argument.' The tax hike would only be a few bucks a month. Hey, it's just a cup of coffee! C'mon!

The problem is, the government around here seems to want people drinking coffee by the pot.

The writer denigrated anyone opposed, calling them "anti-tax, anti-growth, anti-prosperity and anti-community." And said folks opposed to higher taxes "don't care what they tear down, so long as they don't have to pay for the conveniences of living in a civilized society."

What a hoot! Why don't the World editors just call their readers "knuckle-dragging butt faces" and save some ink.

I would be interested to know how saying no to high taxes is tearing anything down. What Randi Miller and her crew did to Bell's, see, that's tearing something down. The Lorton's turning historic downtown buildings into parking lots, that's tearing things down.

The article closed with the standard line of poop about how prospering TCC prospers the county. In other words, more tax money for public education equals prosperity for you.

Well, Tulsa County has 4 TCC campuses and 4 public-subsidized university campuses. There is also the Tulsa Technology Center---which, by the way, just gave longtime tax-mongering World editor Ken Neal's wife a cherry job. Tulsa Tech has morphed into a junior college, and it has 4 campuses.

Just how much prospering of education do we have to do before the prosperity for everybody else kicks in?

TCC and Terrible Timing

I'm not sure I could think of a worse time for Tulsa Community College to seek more money from taxpayers.

Gasoline prices are at all-time highs, they are going higher every day, and they may hit prices people could only joke about a couple of years ago.

Food prices are high, going higher every day, and are predicted to continue to rise for several years to come.

I don't know what happened to it, but earlier in the legislative session certain lawmakers were pushing for a statewide vote on a property tax limitation bill. Legislators supporting the bill said the most consistent complaint they hear from constituents has to do with the constant rise in their property taxes.

And here comes TCC, amid all of that, asking Tulsa County voters to increase their property taxes.

I must say, I can't blame TCC for being cocky. For the past 20 years or so, educators have had no problem getting more money. Ask, and it shall be yours. That's been the gig.

At some point, reasonable people must draw a line in the sand. Tomorrow would be as good a time as any.

TCC Tax Vote: Most Recent in a Series

Tomorrow, Tulsa County voters are faced with saying yea or nay on a tax hike proposal for Tulsa Community College. I took a walk through my mind, wondering how many tax hike votes this makes for Tulsans, going back to, say, the year 2000.

If I'm a little off, forgive me. I'm just pulling things out of my memory. But I think I'll get close enough for scratch.

I believe there was a city vote in 2000 for a "vision-type" sales tax increase. It failed. I believe it was 2003 that the county-wide Vision 2025 passed.

I believe there have been two votes to renew the city's added-penny sales tax for capital improvements. They both passed---even though the tax seems to provide little for Tulsa streets.

I believe there have been two votes for "4 to Fix the County." Both passed. Okay, so we have new livestock barns at the fairgrounds. I'm thrilled.

We faced a property tax increase vote to build a new library downtown. That failed.

We faced a statewide vote to hike the state's motor fuel tax. That failed.

We faced a vote to raise the county sales tax for Arkansas River development. That failed.

Now we face a property tax increase proposed to raise money for a junior college.

By my count, tomorrow will mark the 10th time in 8 years that Tulsans have been called to the polls because politicians and/or whatever have called for a tax increase. We're averaging more than one a year.

Some folks would argue the extension votes don't count as tax increases. I disagree. If a tax is voted in for a finite term and that term runs out then the tax is voted in again, it's a tax increase.

Our "leaders," it seems, never run out of excuses to push for tax hikes. If one proposal goes down to defeat, it is quickly replaced by another. Certainly that has been the history of this decade.

I put the tally at 5 passers and 4 losers. Tomorrow's vote, hopefully, will even the score.

TCC and the River Tax

Not long ago, there was a county-wide vote to increase the sales tax to provide money for Arkansas River development. The measure failed.

During that debate, the argument was made that suburban taxpayers were looking a tax increase that would do nothing for their towns; all the money would have been spent in Tulsa. Supporters countered that river development in Tulsa would be good for the whole county. Burb voters didn't buy it. They were instrumental in voting down the proposal.

The same argument used in the river tax battle applies to Tulsa Community College's property tax hike. Once again, a tax increase that would hit the entire county is proposed, but should the measure pass, all the money will be spent in Tulsa and Owasso.

Broken Arrow, for example, has a 4-year university campus to support these days. Broken Arrow has its own public school district to support. Broken Arrow has street problems just like Tulsa. And---as has clearly been displayed by our wet spring---Broken Arrow has some significant flooding problems that need to be addressed.

Why should Broken Arrow residents ignore their local needs and vote a tax increase on themselves so TCC can have the money?

Sand Springs was recently in the news, complaining that, due to the lack of shopping available in that town, it loses sales tax revenue to Tulsa. Now Sand Springs is being asked to hike its property taxes so that money can leave town as well.

TCC doesn't need more operating revenue. Its operating budget has more than doubled over what it was 15 years ago. TCC doesn't need more buildings. It already has more buildings than Donald freakin' Trump. And the way I look at it, if Owasso wants a TCC learning center, then let Owasso pay for it and leave everybody else's tax money out of the deal.

TCC: Growing Enrollment?

Back in 2003, Tulsa World reporter Omer Gillham wrote a series of investigative reports concerning TCC. I hope to do a post that reviews the dirt he dug up sometime between now and election day. But for now, I'll note one specific TCC lie that Gillham documented.

TCC, at the time, claimed an enrollment of 22,000 students. I contested that number---as did an inside source. Gillham pressed. An administrator ultimately admitted to the lie, and cut the number to 17,000. Even that tally was likely overstated, but it was at least closer to the truth.

Basically, the school was counting a student that was taking, say, two classes at two campuses as two different students.

Why lie about enrollment figures? Well, for occasions such as the one we are in now. TCC wants voters to approve $76 million in new debt, which will result in a temporary property tax increase, and a permanent property tax increase so the school can have more operating revenue. To justify its request, the school claims it has seen enrollment growth of 18 percent since 1999. And, according to KOTV's report last night, the school claims enrollment will grow by 20 percent over the next 10 years.

TCC officials have lied about enrollment in the past, which, all by itself, tends to throw a bucket of cold water on the school's claims of increasing enrollment today. But there is more.

After years and years of pounding away at the student body, increasing tuition and fees, adding new fees, charging more and more for books, doing anything to squeeze another buck out of a student, TCC suddenly decided to start giving it away.

Why would a school that has seen its enrollment climb by 18 percent since 1999 and is expecting continued enrollment growth for the coming decade throw the doors open and invite people in at no charge at all?

Remember, we're talking about educators here---people that spend most of their time and energy screaming for more money.

I don't have anything in the way of specifics on this, but I remember reading that TCC offered an early-retirement package for teachers a few years ago.

Why would a school that has seen enrollment growth since 1999, and is expecting more, offer early retirements to instructors in order to get rid of them?

In the mid '90s, I worked in what was called the Business Services Division of TCC's Metro Campus. I left in 1997. I have an old catalog from that year, so I took a look at the roster of full-time teachers employed by the division at that time. I counted 18.

I went to the web and found a page showing the roster today. I counted 15.

Half of the instructors that were on the payroll in my day---9 of them---are no longer listed. I can't say I know what happened to them, but they are no longer listed as teachers in the division.

In my day, there were two full-time accounting instructors in the division. I found only one listed now.

Yet college administrators claim enrollment is on the rise. And they claim they need a permanent tax increase because they need to hire teachers. Things don't quite seem to match up.

Incidentally, the lone accounting instructor of the day has the letters "J.D." and "C.P.A" after her name. That tells me she's a tax attorney. Tax attorneys, out in the real world, make a whole lot of money. Yet this one took a job as a full-time instructor, teaching basic accounting, at a junior college. Poor, downtrodden, underpaid educators?

When it comes to money for public education, no lie is too big. Keep that in mind.

TCC-TV

I said it would happen, and it did. KOTV ran a story promoting TCC's tax hike last evening. The story ran pretty much in tandem with a TCC paid ad.

The political-educational complex, baby: working hard to talk you out of your money.

The story focused in on TCC's wish to educate air traffic controllers. The story said such a move would be good for the local economy. More tax money for education equals economic prosperity for all. What a tired---and false---promotion.

I figure there are already plenty of places where prospective air traffic controllers can go to be schooled. Otherwise, we wouldn't have any. But we need to pay more in taxes so TCC can get into that business, they say.

How many air traffic controller jobs open up in Tulsa in a given year, do you reckon? None? One? On the high side, two maybe?

But hey, I shouldn't be so cynical. I mean there is some economic benefit to be had in this proposal. Griffin Communications' economy, for example, has already benefited. TCC's ad campaign put your tax money in its coffers. And, if the measure passes, you can bet your butt the personal economic outlooks of TCC big shots will improve.