I was informed yesterday that my company has a wage freeze, as others are laid off. The "fixed income" matra is carried over from the days when there were no automatic Social Security adjustments; Social Security is going up 5.8% this year.

Penisons are also partially adjusted for inflation in NY State, and in the event of a DE-flationary spriral, former public emloyees are still guaranteed an IN-flation adjustment of plus 1%.

There is nothing wrong with having a set of social arrangements that make life tough for younger people (who have other advantages) and cushy for seniors -- IF those arrangements are sustainable.

But the generations now in charge are sticking those coming after with burdens they shirked while demanding benefits those younger generations will never see. And their answer to everything is to borrow more and put off the costs just a little while longer.,

No numbers. No discussion of how we got here, with a financial crisis despite record ridership. No discussion of who benefitted. What is said seems to imply that the entire problem is a function of the current financial crisis.

Yes, borrowing on the MTA's books is mentioned as having pressued the operating budget, but who benefitted from borrowing rather than paying up in the past? And then the recommendation is more borrowing, off the books?

Mark if you are under 40, perhaps the message from the Buick of state governments is that if the job moves, you should move with it. They're going to securitize the future until there is nothing left. They don't seem to get that they already have, unless they are going to have the Federal Reserve print money to buy those bonds.

The tolling of the now-free East and Harlem River bridges would prevent draconian 23% toll increases on the seven bridges and two tunnels controlled by the MTA, namely, the

Brooklyn-Battery Tunnel
Cross Bay Bridge
Henry Hudson Bridge
Marine Parkway/Gil Hodges Memorial Bridge
Queens Midtown Tunnel
Robert F. Kennedy Bridge (nee Triborough)
Throgg's Neck Bridge
Verrazano-Narrows Bridge
Whitestone Bridge

That was yesterday's rant for me. A 1% payroll tax, exempting all the most privileged interests -- the rich, the retired -- was bad enough.

A smaller tax that is indefinate and yet would leave us right back in the same mess in five years is worse. I guess I of all people shouldn't be surprised. Read the start of my Room 8 post from a couple of days ago, the first paragraph with the quote from The Producers.

http://www.r8ny.com/blog/larry_littlefield/the_future_is_coming_too_soon.html

Reason one: I'm an NYC-based employee of an LA-based magazine owned by a company with offices strewn throughout the country. My company might decide that its NYC-based employees are costing too much -- and then I'm out of a job. I'd rather pay a $3 fare.

Reason two: The payroll tax encourages a shell game that will enable car-centric legislators to wiggle out of tolling the bridges. And where is congestion pricing? And the vehicle registration tax? And the commuter income tax?

"The payroll tax of 33 cents per $100, would have to be paid by every single employer in the MTA service area, including the city, the state and nonprofits because 'everybody in the region benefits from the transit system,' former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch said."

If everybody in the region benefits from the transit system, why is it only those to whom a payroll tax would apply who are being asked to pay this "mobility tax"?

Yes there are proposals for steady, regular fare increases, and tolled access to Manhattan to end toll shopping and force all motorists to pay for a share of congested Manhattan streets. These are sensible policies.

There is also an inference that the MTA should stop prioritizing service over capital costs, meaning more long-term shut-downs to cut the cost of reconstruction. That's painful, but I agree with it.

This, however, is overwhelmed by a tax -- an unfair tax at that -- that is inadequate to cover ongoing expenses and will instead be borrowed against. The same deal that's been going on since 2000.

The innovation is that the debt will be shifted to an off-balance sheet entity. But that was already done in the 2005 to 2009 plan, with a 1/8 cent of extra sales tax we'll be paying forever for (in reality) maintenance projects that will be over by the end of next year.

(The new projects, the SAS and ESA, had an acutal bond issue voted on as required by the state constitution, if you recall).

How desperate and ridiculous is this, in addition to being another unethical shift of costs to poorer younger generations? The Port Authority tried to get someone to underwrite a municipal bond issue. It got ZERO bids. Reported today.

On first look, the plan does look sound enough overall but it'll be open political warfare to get the bridges tolled.

"The payroll tax of 33 cents per $100, would have to be paid by every single employer in the MTA service area, including the city, the state and nonprofits because "everybody in the region benefits from the transit system," former MTA Chairman Richard Ravitch said. This would generate $1.5 billion annually and enable the MTA to borrow between $30 and $35 billion over the next five years for its capital plan, which as of today has "not one hard dollar" behind it, Ravitch said."

Oh my God!

They are pushing through a permanent tax, in order to pay for just five years worth of capital expenses, most of which are just ongoing normal replacement.

And then in 2014 we are right back in the same spot with $62 billion in debt instead of $27 billion in debt.

SON OF A...

All this strum and drang, and we are going into deferred replacement and decline in the capital program, unless there is another $2 billion per year in there somewhere.