Comments on: When the MTA had a surplus http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/ A New York City Subway Blog Mon, 22 Mar 2010 05:52:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Marc Shepherd http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58159 Marc Shepherd Tue, 06 Jan 2009 22:50:39 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58159 If they spend it, then by definition it's not surplus. If they spend it, then by definition it’s not surplus.

]]> By: Mr. Eric http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58157 Mr. Eric Tue, 06 Jan 2009 18:02:51 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58157 That's not what the MTA does. They spend every penny of the surplus before the end of the claender year. That’s not what the MTA does. They spend every penny of the surplus before the end of the claender year.

]]> By: Niccolo Machiavelli http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58155 Niccolo Machiavelli Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:44:44 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58155 Hey Larry, how far back did Mark Shaw go anyway? Was Virgil the Chairman in 1995? When did they do fare-box based bonding? Hey Larry, how far back did Mark Shaw go anyway? Was Virgil the Chairman in 1995? When did they do fare-box based bonding?

]]> By: Larry Littlefield http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58152 Larry Littlefield Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:40:51 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58152 (They had a surplus of no less than 600 million for 6 straight years. This is the first year without the surplus in 7 or 8 years.) Sounds like $3.6 billion in the bank. But it isn't. Because if they have a $600 million surplus one year, they roll it over, and if they break even the next year, they claim that same $600 million as an additional surplus. Then they keep doing that, counting the same $600 million over and over, until one year they spend $600 million more than they earn. They call that a balanced budget. And then there is no money. The city does the same thing. The Christmas discount was symbolically stupid, but not a lot of money. The problem is all the decisions like it -- take the way-back machine to 1995, and you see the start of the problem. How about ALL the metrocard discounts? Some were clearly justified, but the MTA clearly was unable to cut fares so much relative to inflation and what the workers earned. What it actually did was defer fares. We will not pay not only today's fares, but yesterdays. Taxes too. (They had a surplus of no less than 600 million for 6 straight years. This is the first year without the surplus in 7 or 8 years.)

Sounds like $3.6 billion in the bank. But it isn’t. Because if they have a $600 million surplus one year, they roll it over, and if they break even the next year, they claim that same $600 million as an additional surplus. Then they keep doing that, counting the same $600 million over and over, until one year they spend $600 million more than they earn. They call that a balanced budget. And then there is no money.

The city does the same thing.

The Christmas discount was symbolically stupid, but not a lot of money. The problem is all the decisions like it — take the way-back machine to 1995, and you see the start of the problem.

How about ALL the metrocard discounts? Some were clearly justified, but the MTA clearly was unable to cut fares so much relative to inflation and what the workers earned. What it actually did was defer fares. We will not pay not only today’s fares, but yesterdays. Taxes too.

]]> By: Marc Shepherd http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58151 Marc Shepherd Tue, 06 Jan 2009 14:02:03 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58151 That sounds like patent nonsense. That sounds like patent nonsense.

]]> By: Mr. Eric http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58140 Mr. Eric Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:49:32 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58140 They had a surplus of no less than 600 million for 6 straight years. This is the first year without the surplus in 7 or 8 years. They had a surplus of no less than 600 million for 6 straight years. This is the first year without the surplus in 7 or 8 years.

]]> By: Benjamin Kabak http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58138 Benjamin Kabak Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:28:44 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58138 And how long did that surplus last? I'm very sympathetic to unions and the plight of workers, but you have to put those economics in perspective. And how long did that surplus last? I’m very sympathetic to unions and the plight of workers, but you have to put those economics in perspective.

]]> By: Mr. Eric http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58137 Mr. Eric Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:27:53 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58137 This was the year the MTA had this 1.04 BILLION dollar surplus and refused to negotiate a fair contract with it's own employees. Pretty pathetic. This was the year the MTA had this 1.04 BILLION dollar surplus and refused to negotiate a fair contract with it’s own employees. Pretty pathetic.

]]> By: A Taste for Vintage Watches, Cigars and Diet Coke - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58135 A Taste for Vintage Watches, Cigars and Diet Coke - City Room Blog - NYTimes.com Mon, 05 Jan 2009 17:55:02 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58135 [...] a ride on the Wayback Machine, when the M.T.A.’s budget surplus meant more breaks and incentives for passengers, like discount holiday fares. [2nd Ave [...] [...] a ride on the Wayback Machine, when the M.T.A.’s budget surplus meant more breaks and incentives for passengers, like discount holiday fares. [2nd Ave [...]

]]> By: rhywun http://secondavenuesagas.com/2009/01/05/when-the-mta-had-a-surplus/#comment-58133 rhywun Mon, 05 Jan 2009 13:29:57 +0000 http://secondavenuesagas.com/?p=1916#comment-58133 <blockquote>At some point, the MTA’s finances will improve, and the agency may once again be saddled with the “problem” of a deficit.</blockquote> I guess you mean "surplus", but yeah, then we can go back to covering up our ears and going "LA LA LA LA!"

At some point, the MTA’s finances will improve, and the agency may once again be saddled with the “problem” of a deficit.

I guess you mean “surplus”, but yeah, then we can go back to covering up our ears and going “LA LA LA LA!”

]]>