Look, we all complain, about everything. And every bill has something to complain about. But is it possible that we'll have a vast improvement on transportation soon? Check it out — House passes its version of transport reform:
The House bill, unlike the Senate version, forces current MBTA workers to get their health insurance through the state system, which could save tens of millions of dollars a year, according to some estimates.
Under the bill, the T would be overseen by the new authority but would have more autonomy than granted under the Senate version.
Both bills would change the pension rules for newly hired MBTA workers, eliminating the “23 and out” benefit that lets workers retire with 57 percent of their salary after 23 years, regardless of age. The bill would create a minimum requirement that workers have 25 years of experience and be 55 years old in order to collect.
(Yes, 55 is still too damn young to retire.)
OK, conferees — let's lean forward. Go with the House version on MBTA => GIC. Go with the Senate version on T oversight — give the Executive Branch the full onus, responsibility, and credit for running the T. More accountability to the public: That's what democracy is about.
Make it so!
(PS: Reason #546,394 why the GOP is nowheres in MA: The idea of putting the legislature in charge of setting tolls. Genius, folks. Great work, A-OK, and thanks a million.)
The age 55 change is complete bull. DeLeo at al are not truly interested in real reform. Blow the entire agency up and impliment a 401k.
Don’t forget, Mass. is a non-contributory state – no Social Security, so Mass. pension is it for many.
<
p>That said, why are Mass. pensions still tax free?
Who is at risk with a defined benefit plan? The answer is the employer. A true 401k puts the employee at risk for his/her choices and gives that employee all the upside associated with the market.
And now that you’ve stated it so straightforwardly, would you care to elaborate on why this is a good idea?
<
p>DB: Employer is at risk. Employer hires many actuaries and market analysts and other flavors of experts to help manage pension. Employer gives bonuses based on performance, to stimulate the best performance possible.
<
p>DC: Employee is at risk. Employee is lucky if they can afford an accountant to do their taxes, let alone an army of experts. Employee is also lucky if they can find a broker who won’t soak them in transaction costs by flipping stocks constantly. Broker is paid by the traid, not based on performance. Employee’s only alternative is to spend their copious free time becoming a financial expert themselves and getting a CheapAssTrades.com brokerage account. Employee is also screwed if they decided to retire in, say, 2007.
<
p>So, tell me again, why is DC so much better than DB?
You said:
<
p>
<
p>Who the hell do you hire? You are talking about a 1040 and a 401k. This is not exactly high finance.
MBTA is Social Security contributory, so that they get the pension and SS at retirement.
The “Rule of 80” (age 55 plus 25 years of service = 80) is fairly common with large employers, especially those who deal with unions. That is a very significant reform, considering it would technically be feasible that someone could currently retire at age 42 if they started working at the T straight out of high school.
<
p>The question I have is whether or not a retiree has to meet both the 55 and 25 thresholds, or whether older retirees can meet the requirements with fewer years of service (i.e. age 60 with only 20 years of service; age 65 with only 15 years of service, etc.).
or 65 for that matter. The “those who deal with unions” line is not helping. Is that what you want to tell the people of the state?
<
p>Hey guys, I understand that most of you have retirement benefits in your 60’s but your kids need to go without teachers because that’s how it works with the unions. Any of you idiots understand the “Rule of 80”.
<
p>I don’t want to be that person. I think retirement benefits on par with the rest of the country is fair. This chips away at this outlandish practice but it doesn’t solve it. But with the climate as it is, now is the right time to do it. So yes, I applaud the efforts so far, but we need more, this is not good enough.
Wouldn’t you like to know how many reps have family and friends on T payroll. Maybe Howie can find out for us. Can you say conflict of interest?
it’s not done because someone has a 3rd cousin working for an agency. Carr could be doing so much more than his idiotic lazy rambling. He does seem to be resourceful and has the contacts but doesn’t want to put in the effort.
Wouldn’t you like to know how many reps have family and friends on T payroll. Maybe Howie can find out for us. Can you say conflict of interest?
Why is it a good idea in general to bring T employees’, or any employees’, benefits down to the average in the rest of the country?
<
p>Does that mean that any employer who pays more than 75% of the health insurance premium should be encouraged to reduce their share? That all defined benefit pensions be ended in favor of 401K’s?
<
p>We shouldn’t encourage the “race to the bottom”. We live in a world which can accomodate much better benefits for working people than currently exist.
<
p>I haven’t scrutinized the T benefit package and I’m not saying that every piece of it should remain the same. But the choice between schools without teachers and reduced worker benefits while the top 20% of the Mass. population pay a lower share of their income in taxes than any other 20% segment is a choice forced on us by the balance of political forces. It doesn’t have to be that way.
<
p>
The Senate bill dissolves the T into a new overarching authority. The House bill keeps the T operationally separate but replaces it’s board of director’s with the authority’s board.
<
p>The House version does more to keep public transportation from having to fight for limited dollars with highways and bridges. This is a good thing. In the fight between trains and roads, roads win nearly every time.
<
p>This is absolutely true, and absolutely must change.
but I don’t know why the form of governance necessarily has that much to do with how much money they get.
<
p>IOW, I agree with the goal, but I don’t get why the House’s bill is better.
right now the T has a dedicated revenue stream from the state in the form of 20% of the state’s sales tax revenue (which has underperformed this decade, but that’s another matter).
<
p>The T uses that money (along with fares, ads, real estate transactions, etc) to pay its operating costs and pay down it’s debt. That dedicated revenue is also the reason the T maintains a decent bond rating (as opposed to the turnpike).
<
p>Consolidate everything into a single authority, put all the money into a single pot, and the T loses that dedicated revenue. You have a single board overseeing everything and determining which division gets how much money, and I fear that public transit gets hosed, especially because neither the House nor Senate version of the board is particularly transit-friendly. A lot of geographic diversity, meaning a minority from areas served by public transit.
<
p>In terms of governance and oversight, there may be advantages to combining the T and RTAs into a single authority, but I’d want to see safeguards put in place to guarantee that public transit would maintain at least the dedicated funding it already has. The T and RTAs are cash-strapped enough as-is.
<
p>Has anybody ever looked at MBTA service vis a vis representation on Beacon Hill?
<
p>How many reps/senators have:
* MBTA Light rail
* MBTA Subway
* MBTA Commuter rail
* MBTA Bus (incl. silver line)
* MBTA the RIDE
in their district? How about other transit agencies?
<
p>It’s true that, geographically speaking, the T doesn’t cover much of the state. It does, however, do a pretty good job of covering where people actually live. I’d think districts would match this, but I’m not all that sure about that.
<
p>I just put in a call to a friend who works for the MBTA Advisory Board… maybe I can find out.
for bus, rapid transit and RIDE service:
<
p>Berry, Frederick E. Peabody
Brown, Scott P. Wrentham
Kennedy, Thomas Brockton
Creem, Cynthia Stone Newton
Fargo, Susan Lincoln
Galluccio, Anthony D. Cambridge
Hart, John A. South Boston
Hedlund, Robert L. Weymouth
Jehlen, Patricia Somerville
Joyce, Brian A. Milton
Donneley, Ken Arlington
McGee, Thomas M. Lynn
Morrissey, Michael W. Quincy
Petruccelli, Anthony W. East Boston
Timilty, James E. Walpole
Tisei, Richard R. Brighton
Tolman, Steven Brighton
Walsh, Marian East Boston
Chang Diaz, Sonia Roxbury
<
p>That’s 20 out of 40. Two from the GOP: Hedlund and Tisei. Seems to me that it would be in the MBTA’s best interest long term to expand into another few senate districts, particularly D districts…