Detailed Abstractions

What are the odds that a government agency tasked with identifying research priorities, research performance management, and reviewing the impact of completed research will come up with a solution that doesn’t involve the government?

Today & tomorrow the EPA are meeting for just this reason (@eScienceNews):

…The goal of the meeting is to develop a collaborative framework to ensure future research and development dollars are spent wisely and in a coordinated manner….

Of course it doesn’t really matter what the answer is, because “spent wisely in a coordinated manner” is almost mutually exclusive to good R&D.  As should be expected by now, the EPA is wasting money on answering a question for which recent literature already exists.

Back in 2001, a Jack Welch underling, W. James (Jim) McNerney, Jr was hired as 3M’s CEO.  In the fanfare associated with being a protege of Mr. Welch, when Mr. McNerney joined 3M, investors had high expectations of pushing some of the GE magic onto the 3M culture.

One of the first and most prominent of these culture changes Mr. Mcnerney instituted was a heavy does of SixSigma.  From the beginning, leading business thinkers were asking whether pushing a very creative culture into the narrow focus of SixSigma might not work.  Or at least, it should not include the whole company.  Sure, use SixSigma for accounting procedures, but leave out R&D.

Of course proponents of SixSigma disagreed.  If it can help manufacturing and then be translated to service related products, why not R&D?

Regardless of the writing public, 3M went forward with implementing a SixSigma policy that included training all workers to a Green-belt level and use SixSigma methodology for every department, including R&D.  How’d it fare?

As you’d expect, the results are mixed.  But asking former 3M scientists, engineers, and the like?  Overwhelmingly they tend to agree it wen too far (@DesignNews):

…While 3M emerged financially stronger from the McNerney era, many long-time 3M researchers, engineers and scientists chafed under the strictures of Six Sigma. Critics argue that excessive metrics, steps, measurements and Six Sigma’s intense focus on reducing variability water down the discovery process. Under Six Sigma, the free-wheeling nature of brainstorming and the serendipitous side of discovery is stifled. Proponents contend such methodologies’ rules keep researchers on track and accountable for producing. Striking the right balance between the application of Six Sigma and unencumbered research is often seen as key….

In fact, a then board member and the former 3M scientist who developed Post-It Notes stated that he believes that in the SixSigma environment, Post-It Notes would simply never have been developed.

History is also rife with examples.  In the book, Sex, Science and Profits: How People Evolved to Make Money,  written by Terence Kealey (review @ Reason.com):

…Kealey shows in nearly every case the crucial inventions of the past two and half centuries were called forth by markets, not invented by scientists working from ivory towers. These include the steam engine, cotton gin, textile mills, railroad engines, the revolver, the electric motor, telegraph, telephone, incandescent light bulb, radio, the airplane—the list is nearly endless…

In fact, a government-funded research paper showed public money can hurt innovation.  Mr Kealey writing about it(@AllBusiness.Com):

…n fact, the evidence shows otherwise. In 2003, the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development published The Sources of Economic Growth in OECD Countries, reporting on a comprehensive regression analysis of the factors that might explain the different growth rates of the world’s 21 leading economies between 1971 and 1998. This indicated that only privately funded R&D led to economic growth, and that publicly funded R&D did not. Worse, the public funding of R&D crowded out private funding, and thus slowed economic growth…

No worries though, I’m sure the government will tell you, that this time is different.   Just ask them.  They completely understand it’s failed many times before, but what you (read: citizens) are too ignorant to understand, is that those failures were under other people and not the worldly, brilliant, omniscient, and yes, even death-defying leaders of today.

& if that doesn’t work for you, remember that it’s “Green”, which we all know are now established unqualified goods.  As such, regardless of how much money taxpayers have to spend to subsidize “green” stuff, the end results are worth it.

Last, but certainly not least, if both of these arguments don’t work to mitigate your concerns, welcome to the club: Disgruntled Americans Against Government Stupidity (DAAG)

Late last week, Michael F. Cannon @ Cato released a study entitled, Yes, Mr. President A Free Market Can Fix Health Care in response to a challenge made by President Obama in March 2009:

“If there is a way of getting this done where we’re driving down costs and people are getting health insurance at an affordable rate, and have choice of doctor, have flexibility in terms of their plans, and we could do that entirely through the market, I’d be happy to do it that way.”

This is very much a presumption based question, like “When did you stop beating your wife?”  It holds within an assumption the only plausible answer is one which uses the power of the government to control the market, and by extension individual citizens, with complete skepticism about any power of the free market.

While this seems to be the default assumption of many of my fellow citizens these days, I don’t know that I’ll ever understand how an objective look at market success versus an objective look at governmental success would lead one to believe the government is capable of much more than simple, repetitive tasks.

Having said that and even knowing the Democratic leadership and the White House is likely to ignore the answer, Mr. Cannon presents a pretty convincing case about a market solution (@Cato).  He explains:

how Congress can remove the impediments that currently prevent markets from doing so:

Whole thing here.

If you’re anything like me, you too are getting nauseous about the “public option” in the health care debate.  One day it exists, the next day it will never exist.  The day after, it’s required…

Well, apparently legislators might have a compromise to pass a bill including an “opt-out public option” (@theHill.com):

Democratic senators continued to remain bullish on the chances of creating a government-run public option as part of health reform….

…Schumer echoed the calls of several senators who this week said that Democratic negotiators has garned the 60 votes necessary to invoke closure on the measure. Sen. Arlen Specter (D-Pa.) last week put it in even stronger terms, saying that Reid had 60 votes for a “robust” public option.

…According to Schumer, Reid “is leaning strongly” toward including a provision that would allow states to opt out of public health insurance if they want to keep private insurers.

Schumer added that the liberal senators are “able to live with” an opt-out public option under which states could decline to participate in a public program….

So there we are;  in a compromise between moderate and liberal Democrats only, a public option seems likely.  Not only has the White House and Democratic leadership dropped any pretense of working across the isle, but people at large seem unwilling to question the claims of their leaders.

One suc spurious claim, is that this option will result in increasing competition:

…”We need some competition for the insurance companies,” Schumer said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.” A government-run insurance plan would “have to play by the same rules as the insurance companies and it would negotiate rates with the providers,” Schumer said. Having a public option would bring competition to states that only have one or two insurance providers, Schumer said….

Proponents everywhere continue to take this stance, even though a public option is logically inconsistent with their stated goal of increase competition.

If Mr. Schumer and others truly wanted to add some competition for insurance companies, adding a new company would not be necessary.  In deed, removing the laws the disallow selling of insurance over state lines doesn’t cost the tax payers one single dime, yet increases competition dramatically, both in the total number of competitors and the speed at which they can begin competing.    Additionally, given the benefits a public option will have over its private competitors, this isn’t really competition.

As Michael Tanner wrote over @ Cato, this support for a public option isn’t likely what it seems (@Cato):

Cognitive dissonance is defined as holding two completely contradictory ideas at the same time.

That seems to be the case with the American public, with a new poll showing rising support for a so-called public option in health care, even as the public continues to oppose greater government control over the health care system….

All in all though, the Democrats hands seem to be very strong hand right now with recent polls showing 57% of the country expressing approval of a public option.   With uninformed voters, an uninformed and uninformative press, and politicians more worried about winning than engaging in honest debates, this compromise might soon become law.

That’s freedom for you – as unfortunate as it seems, whether most people truly understand what the public option entails is irrelevant.  So long as they are willing to approve things they know little about and skip any hard work necessary to critically analyze the problem and various solutions, this new government boondoggle will just continue going forward.

Without apparent concern about the percentage of people who loudly proclaim their dislike of the DMV and use it as an analogy for all that is wrong with the government… the Senate version of the health care bill includes a portion that would allow citizens the pleasure of getting health care insurance through the DMV (Townhall.com):

The most revelatory passage in the so-called “plain English” version of the health care bill that the Senate Finance Committee approved on Tuesday (without ever drafting the actual legislative language) says that in the future Americans will be offered the convenience of getting their health insurance at the Department of Motor Vehicles.

This is no joke. If this bill becomes law, it will be the duty of the U.S. secretary of health and human services or the state governments overseeing federally mandated health-insurance exchanges to ensure that you can get your health insurance at the DMV.  You will also be able to get it at Social Security offices, hospitals, schools and “other offices” the government will name later. …

I guess a Social Security office makes a little sense and even perhaps schools as a temporary sign-up location, but it seems to me signing up at a hospital or school isn’t a good idea over the long run.  I think the idea is that we will all live in the beautiful world with top of the line health care we got when  dropping our children off at school…  If so, it seems that getting insurance at the hospital or waiting until my child goes to school would  be a little late…

Even assuming all three of those are brilliant ideas – did they really mean to include the DMV?

I have this sinking feeling politicians everywhere laughing at us.  Either that or we need a new term other than “out of touch” that connotes the gap between everyday individuals and our leaders is so large as to make the Grand Canyon seem tiny by comparison.

Do they honestly think adding health care insurance to the duties of the the normal DMV clerk will help them pass the bill?

Who knows though?  Maybe I’m completely off base and this is setup behind the scenes by some mysterious genius who brainwashed unwitting politicians. <begin dream sequence>

In fact, it’s not stupidity that created this language.  Not at all; in fact, it’s a creative attempt at a self destruct device for the bill as is.  Where exactly in the world is Hank Scorpio?  <end dream sequence>

Of course the latter would assume a complex network of contacts and some people with super powerful persuasion skills while the former only requires a belief in the group ignorance of our current set of politicians.

In experience and recent history is any guide, the safe bet is on idiocy.  All day, every day, and twice on Sunday.

Social Service Verification for Helen   Kelly

America’s Leader in Employment & Income Verification

UNOFFICIAL COPY    For Demonstration Purposes Only This information is provided as historical information and cannot be used to verify employment or income. The following information is provided in response to your request on: 10/15/2009 . The employer provided this information to The Work Number to act as their official agent for employment and income verification. Any inconsistency between the most recent start date and the total time with the employer is due to a prior work period. If you have questions, please call our Client Service Center at 1-800-996-7566 (Voice) / 1-800-424-0253 (TTY/Deaf).Information not provided by the employer is shown as “Data not provided.”

Where can I go? Print This Verification Back to previous page Get another verification Exit/Logout

Social Service Verification Employment and Income Information current as of: 09/15/2009 Reference Number for this verification: 22578611 EMPLOYER Employer: 11472 – Johns Hopkins University Headquarters Address: 3400 North Charles Street Baltimore , MD 21218 US Federal Employer Identification Number (FEIN): 52-0595110 Division: 52-0595110 EMPLOYEE Employee: Helen  Kelly Social Security Number: XXX-XX-0652 Address: 307 S Cornwall St Baltimore , MD 21224 US Employee Phone Number: Data not provided Date of Birth: Data not provided EMPLOYMENT Employment Status: Active Most Recent Start Date: 02/15/1999 Original Hire Date: 02/15/1999 Reason for Termination: Data not provided Total Time with Employer: Data not provided Job Title: Administrative Program Coordinator Union Affiliation: Data not provided Work Location (Job Site): Data not provided MEDICAL INSURANCE Medical Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Reason for Ineligibility: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Eligibility Date: Data not provided Next Open Enrollment Date: Data not provided Coverage Start Date: Data not provided Coverage Termination Date: Data not provided Medical Carrier Name: Data not provided Medical Carrier Address: Data not provided Medical Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Medical Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided Medical Insurance Group Number: Data not provided Coverage Level: Data not provided Annual Cost for Medical Insurance: Data not provided Dependent Coverage Available: Data not provided Per Pay Period Cost to Add Dependent: Data not provided Number of Dependents Covered: Data not provided Dependents SSN Birth Date Data not provided Participating in Medical COBRA: Data not provided DENTAL INSURANCE Dental Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Dental Carrier Name: Data not provided Dental Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Dental Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided VISION INSURANCE Vision Insurance Available: Data not provided Employee Eligible: Data not provided Employee Enrolled: Data not provided Vision Carrier Name: Data not provided Vision Carrier Phone Number: Data not provided Vision Insurance Policy Number: Data not provided WORKERS’ COMPENSATION Receiving Workers’ Compensation: Data not provided Carrier: Data not provided Date of Injury: Data not provided Date of Award: Data not provided Claim Number: Data not provided Claim Pending: Data not provided INCOME AND DEDUCTIONS Average Hours per Pay Period: 81 Rate of Pay: $2,237.25 / Semi-monthly Pay Cycle: Semi Monthly 2009 2008 2007 Total Gross: $37,989.39 $51,359.92 $48,890.04 Payroll Deduction for All Insurance Coverage: Data not provided PAY PERIOD DETAIL   9/15/2009 Income Withholding Total Gross Earnings $2,274.75 Pension Data not provided Other Income Data not provided Federal Tax $152.13 State Tax $52.03 Local Taxes $34.81 Social Security $141.03 Medicare $32.99 Retirement/401k $916.66 Cafeteria Plan $0.00 Garnishments $0.00 Other Withholding $0.00 HISTORICAL PAY PERIOD SUMMARY Pay Period End Date Pay Date Hours Worked Gross Earnings Net 09/15/2009 09/15/2009 $2,274.75 08/31/2009 08/31/2009 $2,274.75 08/15/2009 08/14/2009 $2,274.75 07/31/2009 07/31/2009 $2,274.75 07/15/2009 07/15/2009 $2,274.75 06/30/2009 06/30/2009 $2,274.75 06/15/2009 06/15/2009 $2,445.09 05/31/2009 05/29/2009 $2,189.58 05/15/2009 05/15/2009 $2,189.58 04/30/2009 04/30/2009 $2,189.58 04/15/2009 04/15/2009 $2,189.58 03/31/2009 03/31/2009 $2,189.58 03/15/2009 03/13/2009 $2,189.58 02/28/2009 02/27/2009 $2,189.58 02/15/2009 02/13/2009 $2,189.58 01/31/2009 01/30/2009 $2,189.58 01/15/2009 01/15/2009 $2,189.58 12/31/2008 12/30/2008 $2,189.58 12/15/2008 12/15/2008 $2,189.58 11/30/2008 11/26/2008 $2,189.58 11/15/2008 11/14/2008 $2,189.58 10/31/2008 10/31/2008 $2,189.58 10/15/2008 10/15/2008 $2,189.58 09/30/2008 09/30/2008 $2,189.58 09/15/2008 09/15/2008 $2,189.58 08/31/2008 08/29/2008 $2,189.58 08/15/2008 08/15/2008 $2,189.58 07/31/2008 07/31/2008 $2,189.58 07/15/2008 07/15/2008 $2,189.58 06/30/2008 06/30/2008 $2,189.58 06/15/2008 06/13/2008 $2,487.08 05/31/2008 05/30/2008 $2,040.83 05/15/2008 05/15/2008 $2,040.83 04/30/2008 04/30/2008 $2,040.83 04/15/2008 04/15/2008 $2,040.83 03/31/2008 03/31/2008 $2,040.83 03/15/2008 03/14/2008 $2,040.83 02/29/2008 02/29/2008 $2,040.83 02/15/2008 02/15/2008 $2,040.83 01/31/2008 01/31/2008 $2,040.83 01/15/2008 01/15/2008 $2,040.83 12/31/2007 12/28/2007 $2,040.83 12/15/2007 12/14/2007 $2,040.83 11/30/2007 11/30/2007 $2,040.83 11/15/2007 11/15/2007 $2,040.83 10/31/2007 10/31/2007 $2,040.83 10/15/2007 10/15/2007 $2,040.83 09/30/2007 09/28/2007 $2,040.83 09/15/2007 09/14/2007 $2,070.79 08/31/2007 08/31/2007 $2,033.34 08/15/2007 08/15/2007 $2,033.34 07/31/2007 07/31/2007 $2,033.34 07/15/2007 07/13/2007 $2,033.34 06/30/2007 06/29/2007 $2,033.34 06/15/2007 06/15/2007 $2,033.34 05/31/2007 05/31/2007 $2,033.34 05/15/2007 05/15/2007 $2,033.34 04/30/2007 04/30/2007 $2,033.34 04/15/2007 04/13/2007 $2,033.34 03/31/2007 03/30/2007 $2,033.34 03/15/2007 03/15/2007 $2,033.34 02/28/2007 02/28/2007 $2,033.34 02/15/2007 02/15/2007 $2,033.34 01/31/2007 01/31/2007 $2,033.34 01/15/2007 01/12/2007 $2,033.34

With the state of Missouri’s recent fiscal problems and a 9.4% unemployment rate, the state worker’s union has decided now is the time to act.

Questions for the unions:  Is it time to cut back?  Become more lean?  Follow the rest of private industry and cut back as revenue growth loses momentum?

Union’s answer:  Surely ye jest!  We’re the union & the time is ripe for a pay raise!

That’s correct.  As the entire state population spends less money to try to tread water in these tight times, the unions apparently believe they are in prime position to negotiate:

…The union has proposed a 6 percent annual pay raise for the next three years and a “fair share” fee for nonunion members who are covered by union-negotiated contracts. The negations are over a contract for patient care support workers that expired in June and one for craft and maintenance employees that expired in December.

But wait!  Ask them nicely and they’ll tell you that they only have the best of intentions:

Curt Ostrander, the union’s chief negotiator, told The Associated Press that the union’s priority is protect state workers, address staff shortages and help people do their jobs better. He described discussions with the state thus far as “cooperative,” and said the two sides are trying to find ways to be more efficient to save money and solve problems.

“Our top priorities are to provide a contract that gives workers the necessary protection in order for them to perform their jobs in a safe, effective manner and to provide state services,” Ostrander said….

For those MBA’s out there – please note the very sound logic incorporated in “address staff shortages and become more efficient to save money” while simultaneously asking for a 6% raise for the next 3 years during a recession.

The audacity it takes to ask the tax payers of this state to pony up 6% annual raises, while many in the state can’t or won’t get a raise at all this year, is pompous and arrogant.

This combined with them selling the money grab as something that will reduce costs, while increasing staff, is completely disingenuous.

To be fair, this is an opening gambit and it’s not likely they’ll get everything (though the governor is pro-union), but if we continue to allow our elected leaders and unelected leaders (read: special interests) to operate within side the quiet world of doublespeak without so much as a whimper of an objection, then we surely are going to get exactly what we deserve.

Read all about government wages versus free market wages in The Great Recession here

Unless you were lucky enough to be traveling or otherwise unavailable on Sunday, you were likely deluged with Mr. Obama’s media storm to sell not only health care, but apparently many other items as well.

First, it should be noted that this WH is above all, extremely insecure.  The President could be seen on 5 Sunday news shows: NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN and Univision.   But he didn’t have time for Fox, the number one rated Sunday news show…

Regardless of the WH being extremely petty and worrying more about perceived injustices than an honest discussion with those who might disagree, what he actually said is far more serious.

When asked if a health care mandate was a tax increase on ABC’s this week, the President responded:

…”I absolutely reject that notion,” the president said….

“What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore,” said Obama. “Right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance . Nobody considers that a tax increase.”…

Using flawed logic is nothing new for Presidents, but this one isn’t even close.  Hhe’s analogizing the privilege of driving with the “privilege” of being a citizen.

The difference of course as that by my very birth, I have a “right” to be a citizen, whereas driving has always remained a privilege with constraints.  You see, I can forgo auto insurance, so long as I don’t drive.  There are many ways around without a car in this day and age, but if I “choose” to drive, then constraints can be placed on me.

Health care on the other hand would be required simply because I existed and no other reason.  & If the government says, “You have to buy this” – it is a tax increase as not paying it can land you in very serious legal troubles.

On CBS’s Face the Nation, with an omnipotent sense of when health care, our fearless leader goes further:

…Obama put his support behind the idea of taxing employers that offer high-cost insurance plans.

“I do think that giving a disincentive to insurance companies to offer Cadillac plans that don’t make people healthier is part of the way that we’re going to bring down health care costs for everybody over the long term,” Obama said on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”…

Even ignoring the fact that this goes against his basic premise that more people need more health care, one wonders if there is anything our President doesn’t know.  So far, he’s taken over banks, car companies, told car companies with whom to merge, who to hire, who to fire, what to build… and now we find out he knows how much health care is too much.

But let’s not stop there.  Not only is our community organizer one of the smartest men in America when it comes to economics and health care, he’s also a brilliant strategist with respects to Afghanistan:

…”What I’m not also gonna do, though, is put the resource question before the strategy question,” Obama told NBC’s David Gregory on “Meet the Press.” “Until I’m satisfied that we’ve got the right strategy I’m not gonna be sending some young man or woman over there- beyond what we already have.”…

I’m not sure exactly what happens to man to think he has the answers to every single last question. Maybe it’s just arrogance and ignorance, as Hayek stated:

If most people are not willing to see the difficulty, this is mainly because, consciously or unconsciously, they assume that it will be they who will settle these questions for the others, and because they are convinced of their own capacity to do this.

Whatever the reason he believes so strongly in his ability to decide what’s best for our own good, history shows us without question where this inevitably leads.  Hayek again:

To act on the belief that we possess the knowledge and the power which enable us to shape the processes of society entirely to our liking, knowledge which in fact we do not possess, is likely to make us do much harm.

Let’s hope we begin to understand the value of humility before we do too much damage.

First – a disclaimer – I have a feeling that some of you who might agree with me normally, might feel uncomfortable about this discussion.  However, if we truly want an open and honest debate, tough questions will need to be asked and answered.

According to a recent Harvard Medical School study via Rueters:

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Nearly 45,000 people die in the United States each year — one every 12 minutes — in large part because they lack health insurance and can not get good care, Harvard Medical School researchers found in an analysis released on Thursday.

“We’re losing more Americans every day because of inaction … than drunk driving and homicide combined,” Dr. David Himmelstein, a co-author of the study and an associate professor of medicine at Harvard, said in an interview with Reuters.

To begin, we should take note of the wording itself as the 45K number is logically very tough to substantiate.  The report itself states these people died “in large part” due to lack of insurance, noting in the wording the difficulty of the definition.  Not only would you need to find people who might have lived with insurance, but I think you should also remove those people who could afford it but chose not to (usually younger professionals with a belief that they don’t need it).

Having said that, even if we assume the 45K number is accurate, it is true that it’s higher than both homicide and drunk driving rates combined at around about 30K deaths a year.

Using the 45K & the “ideal” $200 billion a year (CBO reports government health care spending with the new bill will be 1 trillion in new spending over the next ten years), we would be spending about 4.5 million for each life saved.  This assumes that the government projections are correct, which we know history shows us it’s likely to cost much, much more.  & it assumes that giving them insurance would truly save lives.

The difference in the analogy therefore is that no one in congress is currently setting up a bill where will spend an additional 4.5 million dollars per homicide & drunk driving deaths in order to save those lives.

I recognize for some, cost/benefit analysis is by definition wrong since human life is sacred, but we have to recognize that spending 4.5 million on say cancer or heart disease research is likely to save many, many more lives than spending it on the current health care plan.

Globally, spending this much money on portable water, malaria drugs, childhood vaccinations, and other fairly cheap solutions would save literally tens of millions of people each year.

I know – cold-blooded, heartless, etc – but given my current income level, I wouldn’t even force my own family to come up with 4.5 million to save me, much less think it’s my neighbor’s responsibility to pony up part of the cash through the force of law to do so.

While listening to the audio version of this Economist article, I learned about a recently new Facebook called 1,000,000 People Against the NYC MTA Fare Hike.  & over @ Reason, I learned about this article, written by a guy paid to write about economics, describing to his readers how his stupid decisions are not his fault.

This is almost too much stupidity for me to handle in a single day.  The audacity of FB posters and the economics writer believing with sincerity that tax payers should be helping them out is disgusting, bankrupt, and morally indefensible.

From Facebook:

Marc Silverman (New York, NY) wrote at 11:28am on May 11th, 2009

The MTA are a Bunch of Thieving MOFO’s!

SuetShan StreetCred (New York, NY) wrote at 3:34pm on May 14th, 2009

Give us a break! We cannot afford paying more. Can’t have rice and beans everyday either.

Wilson Fisk (Westchester, NY) wrote at 1:49am on May 15th, 2009

I’m in this group now too, so make it 1,000,001 people against the fare hikes. Now I know they’re gonna say this is just another mo-fo’ b*tching about the fare hikes ’cause he ain’t got nothing else better to do or because he’s cheap or because he’s just ain’t trying to pay more for his metro card and all of those are correct. However those aren’t the main reasons I joined this group. My uncle works for the MTA and he’s always talking about he’s under paid, the trains and busses always come on the craziest schedule ever, they’re always dirty as the projects staircases- the other day I had to sit next to a roach on the train– he was going to visit heis mother for mother’s day, she lived in queens. They’re gonna raise prices and cut services- I hear, I mean WTF!!! What the hell do they do with all the CREAM they don’t pay the workers top dollar for thier services, they don’t pay for extra workers to help clean the busses, trains, stations and to give us more service. It’s like WTF!!!

Angelica Valle (Baltimore, MD) wrote at 11:44am

I had to leave Ny because I couldn’t afford the $2 fare hike. Now I can’t even move back if the fare goes up to $3…wtf.. I mean I could scrape up $4 but six its ridiculous!! I could pay it but why should I have to!!!

Muneeb Aleem Qureshi (CUNY Hunter) wrote at 2:11pm yesterday

WTF is wrong with MTA?, i mean i can afford to pay that much but I feel bad for those people who can’t, their screwed

Charles Lenchner (New York, NY) wrote at 4:22pm on May 14th, 2009

Please help us do something about the crazy rents going up all the time! http://apps.facebook.com/c auses/283193. Support stronger rent laws that protect affordable housing and prevent rents from going up faster than anything else….