I am opposed to the level of borrowing and what it has been used for.

Borrowing is appropriate for new facilities that will provide benefits for additional people.

Borrowing is not appropriate for the ongoing maintenance and normal replacement for existing facilties, leaving future generations to both pay back the debt and pay for future maintenance and normal replacement.

In reality they will not be able to do both, and maintenance and normal replacement will stop, because debt has priority. And we’ll certainly be unable to pay for the promised new facilities.

We have passed three bond issues for the Second Avenue Subway, in the 1950s, late 1960s, and late 1990s. Where is it?

Are you opposed to level of borrowing or the use of borrowing in general. If its the former, then I agree with you and lay the blame almost entirely at the feet of politicians for failing to fund the MTA adequately. If the latter, I believe that you are ignoring the economic benefits of completing a project earlier and therefore receiving the benefits for the years that a project would have otherwise been deferred.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601109&sid=aEwSqEjHpqUs&refer=home

New York borrowed billions of dollars at variable rates that allowed lower costs (more money to hand out) up front but exploding costs in a future our politicians don’t care about. That future has arrived.

“The state had $4 billion in debt with interest rates, set in periodic auctions, that soared as high as 14.2 percent after bidders vanished in February. That was more than triple the January average. The cost to taxpayers rose even more when the state’s first option, replacing auction-rate debt with variable- rate bonds, wasn’t available for the full amount.”

The state (including the MTA) is trying to refinance into higher fixed rates before it goes bankrupt. Wall Street is charging them a second time for the new debt. Losses so far: $340 million, and it’s just getting started.

“The first auction-rate bonds to be replaced, for $3.45 million in fees, were those issued by the Tobacco Settlement Finance Corp. It was the only state-backed borrower whose debt specified a 15 percent rate if auctions didn’t attract buyers. Failed auctions of other issues were pegged to market rates and never exceeded 6.27 percent.”

That is, the state has already spent all future Tobacco Settlement revenues, borrowing against them. We are probably now paying more on those bonds than the revenues.

The’ve sold our future to multiple buyers, all of whom want to be paid.

Good thing they are talking about $2 billion for transit, because they are almost certain to propose $50 billion in subsidies for the auto industry.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aW2XCiHM9KnQ&refer=home

Paid for by the New York area, where the automakers have long-since closed all their plants.