GLEN COVE, New York (Sunday, April 2, 2011)

In response to Nassau County Executive Mangano's plan to privatize Long Island Bus, Patricia Bowden, president of Transport Workers Union (TWU) Local 252, publicly stated, "Privatization of public transportation is a proven loser that may provide temporary budget relief, but in the long run will cost the county in jobs and growth opportunities."

Nassau County residents, however, have been the only "proven loser" under the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA).

According to the MTA's 2011 adopted budget, Long Island Bus (LIB) accounted for only one percent of expenses excluding depreciation, other post-employment benefits (OPEB) obligation, and environmental remediation; however, New York City Transit (NYCT) consumed 53 percent of revenue. Nassau County residents fund the MTA not only via transit fares and tolls but also through numerous taxes and fees. These taxes and fees include a payroll tax on all public and private employers in the Metropolitan Commuter Transportation District; a portion of the sales tax; a vehicle registration fee; a driver's license renewal fee; an additional sales tax on car rentals; a petroleum business tax; a corporate surtax; a mortgage recording tax; and a surtax on telecommunication services.

We, consequently, send an overwhelming majority of our dollars to NYCT.

In addition to subsidizing NYCT, we fund the MTA's rabid labor costs. From 2008 to 2009, for example, LIB's total labor costs exceeded 4% and TWU Local 100 (the public union that controls NYCT) received a generous labor contract at arbitration (i.e., an 11.5 percent pay increase over three years with decreased contributions to employee health care costs). During the same period, the U.S. Government reported that personal income levels in New York State decreased by approximately three percent and inflation grew about two percent.

The MTA made us "losers" here too.

Despite the aforementioned facts and that the private sector owned the majority of mass transit systems in the United States until the Kennedy Administration, there will be some who still call us to the ramparts of MTA-managed transportation. The Tri-State Transportation Campaign (TSTC) announced that they will coordinate a media campaign to defend the indefensible status quo. TWUs, post Quill-Connolly Day, unite (they have nothing to lose but our change).

Those who adamantly oppose privatization should propose supplementary revenue sources for LIB that do not lighten our pockets.

Here are some suggestions:

• Institute an annual tax on the political campaign accounts of New York State legislators who supported the MTA bailout bill (i.e., a new payroll tax on all employers in Nassau County, a vehicle registration fee, a driver's license fee, and an additional sales tax on car rentals).
• Add an additional tax on the pay and benefits of the TWUs.
• Include another surtax on item two that accounts for the difference between New Yorkers who lost income since 2008 and those TWU members who realized gains.
• Add a surtax on the income of MTA management.
• Compel groups of TSTC's ilk to pay a "Nassau Bus Riders" fee.

These ideas should be no less desirable to the MTA supporters than their call for Nassau residents to continue public financing of LIB. Do they expect us to shoulder it alone? For further discussion of LIB privatization, please read my article titled "Resident Calls for Privatization of MTA Long Island Bus."

GLEN COVE, New York (Saturday, February 12, 2011)

Some of you may have heard of Nassau County's "Living Wage" law (it applies to select contracts with the county). A "living wage" is a wage set by a state or local government above the federal minimum standard. It also increases with the annual inflation rate. Nassau County's living wage is currently 95 percent above the federal minimum without benefits ($14.16 per hour) and 72 percent above with them ($12.50 per hour) - a clear disparity between private-sector minimum wage earners and taxpayer-subsidized ones.

While economists debate whether living wage laws increase or have no effect on unemployment among low-wage earners such as teenagers or the poor, this article reveals the cost to the taxpayer.

Baltimore, Maryland was the first municipality to mandate a living wage. Since its implementation in 1994, organizations such as the Association for Community Reform Now (ACORN) lobbied state and local legislatures to pass this mandate.

This mandate spread to over 140 municipalities nationwide.

What is the result? In Nassau County, for example, the Nassau Interim Finance Authority (NIFA) warned in 2005 that this legislation was "fiscally irresponsible." Furthermore, the Office of Legislative Budget Review stated that it would "increase the county's costs by $3 million to $7 million a year" [Ibid.].

Fourteen years later, the Maryland State Department of Legislative Services concluded that this mandate "resulted in increased labor costs of between 13 and 25.6 percent and total contract cost increases of between seven and 19 percent...for labor-intensive service contracts."

It also stated that the Maryland Stadium Authority realized a 30 percent increase in labor costs at M & T Bank Stadium which, through a contractual agreement, it passed on to the Baltimore Ravens [Ibid.].

Do the benefits of paying a higher, non-free market based wage outweigh its costs to taxpayers? As the 2010 elections indicated a revolt against unsound fiscal policies, governments should examine the utility of living wage laws. Taxpayers should demand proof that this centralized economic policy benefits them. If none exists, they cannot endure additional taxes and fees to fund another costly mandate.

 Click Here To Read The Full Letter In The  

GLEN COVE, New York (Saturday, January 1, 2011)

Privatization is a better option than continued and growing taxpayer funding of MTA. Long Island Bus. While some may advocate increased public financing, the taxpayers cannot afford to continue indefinitely subsidizing this inefficient organization.

The Nassau County Comptroller reported on Nov. 17 that expenses per rider are over three times greater than revenues for MTA. Long Island Bus. In addition, labor accounts for 70% of budget expenses primarily due to "payroll and health care costs." Furthermore, the MTA.'s November Financial Plan 2011-2014 revealed that the growth of labor expenses will continue to exceed farebox revenue (i.e., the price a rider pays). The County taxpayer should no longer shoulder this expense.

In the longterm, Nassau County should pursue complete privatization of L.I. Bus and divest itself of all bus service. This concept would not be foreign to the history of mass transit in America. The American Public Transit Association's report, "Conservatives and Mass Transit: Is it Time for a New Look?" stated that most transit systems in the United States were privately owned in the early half of the last century. Government-controlled fares limited mass transit's profitability and squeezed the private sector from providing this service.

While complete privatization of L.I. Bus is a long-term goal, it could take time to lobby for deregulation. Many residents rely on uninterrupted bus service now and a public-private partnership is a possible intermediary step. During this period, Nassau County should create a zone of free market mass transit with the help of state and federal officials. Exemption from onerous mandates such as Section 13(c) of the Urban Mass Transportation Act of 1964 is necessary. In order to give bus customers the best price and service, different operators should provide para-transit, rapid transit, and fixed-route services.

Nassau County residents could enjoy quality bus service without increasing the already high tax burden. These possible solutions would not only stimulate private-sector job growth but also provide efficient consumer paid -- not wasteful taxpayer paid -- service.

 Click Here To Read The Full Letter In The