Posted on 12/22/2005 6:29:07 AM PST by ElRushbo
just saw a headline come across about a possible resolution-- cnbc reporting annoncement may come shortly...
May I humbly suggest that you don't want to go there since the MTA isn't the only thing Downstate sucking up Upstate's tax money.
I don't want to get into an Upstate/Downstate argument with you, since it would be counter-productive and you'd only be embarrassed (just kidding).
However, having lived upstate (Rochester and Utica), I can certainly understand your plight. Yes, the nine million or so denizens of New York City certainly do exact a toll on the people Upstate, but just think of where you'd be if it were not for Wall Street --- you'd be Vermont, only straight.
PS, while I'm at it, Staten Island attempted to seceede from New York city in the 1980's and early 90's, only to be slapped down by the evil cabal of Cuomo, Clinton and Dinkins.
They made the the argument that the city could not exist without the tax base of a half-million Staten Islanders. And they were right. Staten Island alone accounts for almost 20% of all city income tax revenues.
In the meantime, $300 million was spent to build a new naval base on the island that has gone unused, and which the city hasn't found a decent use for. Billions were spent on housing for all the expected sailors and their families, which necessarily went to "low-income families" (i.e. useless mouths) since it would not be going to productive individuals (sailors and marines), and we now live on a crowded 12 mile by 7 mile island, with no mass transit, an $8 one-way toll (thank you Mario Cuomo), with 600,000 people (and climbing) on it.
Had the folks in the State Assembly (all those Upstate Republicans)taken a stand for freedom, and allowed Staten Island to become an independant city, perhaps Staten Islanders would not have to be smeared with the same brush as the Manhattanites.
This is the political equivalent of fantasy football, of course. But if it could be done, the Middle Atlantic region has a good chance of producing three or four conservative U.S. Senators, instead of just one.
Right on, Dave. It's easy to be a conservative in Arkansas or Alabama. Try being on in New York City or DC. We have first-hand experience of the effects of perpetual liberal government. This strike has pissed off all New Yorkers, regardless of their political persuasion. I've found it amusing to hear liberal, pro-union New Yorkers advocate stiff penalties for the thug transit workers. It looks like this b.s. is almost over...they better follow through on the fines...
IMHO, a better way to get conservative senators would be to repeal the 17th Amendment and go back to appointment by state legislatures. Somehow, I can't imagine even the most liberal state legislature appointing a$$hats like the Swimmer or the Hildabeast to represent their state's interests in Washington.
I am no fan of the 17th Amendment, but the Republicans have captured Senate seats in the South well before the state legislatures went Republican. For example, by 1993, the GOP held both U.S. Senate seats in Texas, although the party did not obtain control of both houses of the legislature until 2002.
It is actually a fraud that has been perpetrated against the taxpayers. Benefits are being promised that taxpayers have not agreed to fund, and taxpayers haven't been told of the future costs of those promised benefits.
If this was a contract for a car, you the taxpayer had been told that your healthcare car cost $25,000...and then ten years later find out that the Seller of the car was demanding another $25,000 in "benefits."
Except, you didn't agree to those benefits...or at least didn't agree to pay the Seller that extra $25,000.
Likewise, teachers get paid every two weeks for current work. Paying them after they retire...for doing no work...is akin to being asked to pay again for a car that you bought ten years ago.
If a car dealership asked you for an extra $25,000 ten years after you bought a car from them, you'd tell them to go pound sand.
Well, retired teachers are asking for that extra $25,000 (or perhaps even an extra $250,000) for their "benefits" long after they were paid for their work.
But the buyer of the car doesn't owe an extra $25,000...and neither does the taxpayer.
The taxpayer is actually being defrauded because the taxpayer hasn't been told the true cost of the promised benefits to teachers.
This is like hiding payments to teachers in a public budget; it's illegal.
If you found out that a $250,000 per year football coach was secretly being paid an extra $200,000 in taxpayer money "off the books," then you'd be outraged because the taxpayers hadn't agreed to those extra off the books payments.
Well, the healthcare that has been promised to teachers is off the books...taxpayers haven't been shown the real amount. That's the same as hiding the extra payments to the football coach in that it is a fraud perpetrated against taxpayers.
Right now, people "in the know" claim that the taxpayer *can't* be told the real amount of future healthcare costs because it is too hard to forecast...
...But being too difficult is no excuse for fraud.
Which is to say, yes, it is difficult to forecast future healthcare costs...but that doesn't excuse defrauding the taxpayers.
It's still a fraud.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.