New York Transit Strike to End ?

New York times

[mewzilla]

I'd say you have comparatively little to moan about.

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.

[Wombat101]

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.

[Wombat101]

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.

[Wallace T.]

Central, western, and northern New York and the "T-Zone" of Pennsylvania would make a good state. Binghamton or Elmira could be the capital of the new state. If you added northwestern New Jersey and the western panhandle of Maryland, that state might be as conservative as Indiana. (The state could be called East Montana!) You would still have Buffalo and Ithaca to deal with, but they would be as isolated as liberal northwest Indiana is to the rest of the Hoosier State. Let the New York City-based state have eastern New York up to Albany and the Catskills. Metro Philadelphia and the Allentown-Bethlehem area could unite with the remainder of New Jersey. Metro Wilmington could be united to the Philadelphia - New Jersey combination. Southwestern PA could be attached to West Virginia, which is Democratic anyway. Central Maryland and DC could become another state that would inherit the Maryland name. The Eastern Shore of Maryland could be united with the lower two counties of Delaware, to form another conservative state, named Delmar.

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.

[joey9004]

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...

[bassmaner]

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.

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.

[Wallace T.]

New York's legislature probably would not have selected Hillary Clinton, but it might have accepted Chuck Schumer and some RINO for the two Senate seats. As for Massachusetts, I have no doubt that Kennedy and Kerry would represent that ultra-liberal state in the U.S. Senate.

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.

[Southack]

"I believe that offering health care upon retirement without some provisions to control cost is one of the worst benefits that can be paid to employees. It is a guaranteed benefit that has a variable cost. In 10 years, I predict you will see many school districts having to consolidate due to the inability of smaller districts in rural areas to increase the tax levy enough to cover the rising costs of health care."

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.