Support and opposition clearly broke down alone the racial lines: <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/brandt221205.html>. 58% of the Blacks blamed the MTA for the strike and 61% of them favored the strike, whereas 53% of the whites blamed Local 100 and 71% of them opposed the strike. Latinos fell into the middle ground. 27% of the whites who blamed the MTA rather than Local 100 and 23% of the whites who supported Local 100's decision to strike probably are from the poorer strata of the working class.
You could have helped build support for transit workers by talking about the issue of attacks on pensions in both the private and public sectors via your radio show and the LBO. It's still not too late -- more of such conflicts will come.
After all, a larger percentage of whites than Blacks or Latinos must have pensions, so the pension angle can help build cross-race solidarity (Blacks have learned enough to stand up for workers who have more than they do, but in the case of many whites their self interest at stake in "other people's struggles" needs to be explained to them).
Cf.
<blockquote>December 11, 2005 <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/11/business/yourmoney/11retire.html> The Next Retirement Time Bomb
By MILT FREUDENHEIM and MARY WILLIAMS WALSH
SINCE 1983, the city of Duluth, Minn., has been promising free lifetime health care to all of its retired workers, their spouses and their children up to age 26. No one really knew how much it would cost. Three years ago, the city decided to find out.
It took an actuary about three months to identify all the past and current city workers who qualified for the benefits. She tallied their data by age, sex, previous insurance claims and other factors. Then she estimated how much it would cost to provide free lifetime care to such a group.
The total came to about $178 million, or more than double the city's operating budget. And the bill was growing.
"Then we knew we were looking down the barrel of a pretty high- caliber weapon," said Gary Meier, Duluth's human resources manager, who attended the meeting where the actuary presented her findings.
Mayor Herb Bergson was more direct. "We can't pay for it," he said in a recent interview. "The city isn't going to function because it's just going to be in the health care business."
Duluth's doleful discovery is about to be repeated across the country. Thousands of government bodies, including states, cities, towns, school districts and water authorities, are in for the same kind of shock in the next year or so. For years, governments have been promising generous medical benefits to millions of schoolteachers, firefighters and other employees when they retire, yet experts say that virtually none of these governments have kept track of the mounting price tag. The usual practice is to budget for health care a year at a time, and to leave the rest for the future.
Off the government balance sheets - out of sight and out of mind - those obligations have been ballooning as health care costs have spiraled and as the baby-boom generation has approached retirement. And now the accounting rulemaker for the public sector, the Governmental Accounting Standards Board, says it is time for every government to do what Duluth has done: to come to grips with the total value of its promises, and to report it to their taxpayers and bondholders.
The board has issued a new accounting rule that will take effect in less than two years. It has not yet drawn much attention outside specialists' circles, but it threatens to propel radical cutbacks for government retirees and to open the way for powerful economic and social repercussions. Some experts are warning of tax increases, or of an eventual decline in the quality of public services. States, cities and agencies that do not move quickly enough may see their credit ratings fall. In the worst instances, a city might even be forced into bankruptcy if it could not deliver on its promises to retirees.
"It's not going to be pretty, and it's not the fault of the workers," said Mayor Bergson, himself a former police officer from Duluth's sister city of Superior, Wis. "The people here who've retired did earn their benefits."
The new accounting rule is to be phased in over three years, with all 50 states and hundreds of large cities and counties required to comply first. Those governments are beginning to do the necessary research to determine the current costs and the future obligations of their longstanding promises to help pay for retirees' health care. Local health plans vary widely and have to be analyzed one by one. No one is sure what the total will be, only that it will be big.
Stephen T. McElhaney, an actuary and principal at Mercer Human Resources, a benefits consulting firm that advises states and local governments, estimated that the national total could be $1 trillion. "This is a huge liability," said Jan Lazar, an independent benefits consultant in Lansing, Mich. "If anybody understands it, they'll freak out."
Last spring, the state of Alaska was the scene of a showdown over retirement benefits that those involved said was a precursor of fights to come. Conservative lawmakers who supported scaling back traditional retiree health care and pension benefits squared off against union lobbyists, advocates for the elderly and the schools superintendent of Juneau, the state capital, who defended the current benefits.
After saying that Alaska's future combined obligations for pensions and retiree health care were underfunded by $5.7 billion, Gov. Frank H. Murkowski called a special session of the Legislature and pushed through changes in pension and retirement health care benefits for new state employees. (The state Constitution forbids changing the benefits of current employees.)
Instead of having comprehensive, subsidized medical coverage, new public workers will have a high-deductible plan and health savings accounts. The changes cleared the State Senate and passed by a one- vote margin in the House.
Even the White House weighed in on the Alaska problem. Ruben Barrales, President Bush's director of intergovernmental affairs, lobbied wavering Republican legislators, arguing in favor of replacing pensions and traditional retiree health benefits with private savings accounts for new employees. Mr. Barrales noted that the president was seeking similar changes in Social Security, including a plan for private accounts.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
In Duluth, Mayor Bergson said the city actually offered free retiree health care as a cost-cutting measure back in 1983. At the time, Duluth was trying to get rid of another ballooning obligation to city workers: the value of unused sick leave and vacation days. Public workers then were in the habit of saving up this time over the course of their careers and cashing it in for a big payout upon retirement. Compared with the big obligations the city had to book for that unused time, substituting free retiree health care seemed cheap. "Basically, they traded one problem for another," Mayor Bergson said.
WITH some exceptions, most states and cities have set aside no money to pay for retiree medical benefits. Instead, they use the pay-as-you- go system - paying for former employees out of current revenue. Agencies did not have to estimate the total size of their commitment to retiree health care, so few did so.
Under the new accounting rule, local governments will still not have to set aside any money for those promises. But they will be required to lay out a theoretical framework for the funding of retiree health plans over the next 30 years, and to disclose what they are doing about it. If they fail to put money behind their promises to retirees, they may feel the unforgiving discipline of the financial markets. Their credit ratings may go down, making it harder and more expensive to sell bonds or otherwise borrow money.
Parry Young, a public finance director at Standard & Poor's, the credit rating agency, said his analysts look at total liabilities, including pension and now other "post-employment" obligations. Many governments, he added, have already been grappling with big deficits in their employee pension funds.
A few agencies are wrestling with the daunting task of estimating their total retiree health obligations and coming up with a way to slice it into a 30-year funding plan. They are finding that under the new method, the benefit costs for a particular year can be anywhere from 2 to 20 times the pay-as-you-go costs they have been showing on their books.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Today, only one in 20 companies still offers retiree benefits, according to Don Rueckert Jr., an Aon actuary. The rate for large companies is less than one in three, down from more than 40 percent before the private-sector accounting change, according to Mercer Human Resource Consulting. General Motors and Ford are among the big companies that still offer retiree health benefits. But both automakers recently persuaded the United Automobile Workers union to accept certain reductions.
"We expect the same thing in the public sector, unless we help employers do the right thing," said John Abraham, deputy research director for the American Federation of Teachers.
The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, known by the acronym GASB (pronounced GAZ-bee), is a nonprofit organization based in Norwalk, Conn., and a sister to the Financial Accounting Standards Board that writes accounting rules for the private sector. Karl Johnson, the project manager for the retiree-benefits rule, said GASB began hearing from public employees' unions as soon as it issued a first draft of its new standard. The unions said that if governments were forced to disclose the cost of their plans, they would probably cut or drop them, just as companies have done.
Mr. Johnson said the accounting board had no interest in trying to reduce anyone's benefits, and no power to dictate local policy even if it wanted to. "Accounting is just trying to hold up a good mirror to what's happening," he said. "These are very expensive benefits."
Under the new rule - outlined in the board's Statement No. 45 in June 2004, and known widely as GASB 45 - large public governments and school boards with large health care obligations to retirees will have to start reporting their overall benefits cost in 2007 - either on Jan. 1 of that year or, for most big governments, on the start of the fiscal year beginning June 1, 2007. Smaller governments will start using the new method in the two years after that.
The change comes at a rough time for state and local governments. Spending on Medicaid and education has been spiraling, and Congress continues to cut federal taxes and shift burdens of governing away from Washington. In some areas, including parts of Michigan, governments are also suffering from the financial difficulties of important local industries. Max B. Sawicky, an economist at the Economic Policy Institute, a liberal research group in Washington, called the new requirement "another straw on the camel's back" for state and local governments already straining under their budget burdens.</blockquote>
The entire article is worth reading if the NYT still makes it available for free. It shows a ruling class battle plan!
See, also, <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/wolff191205.html> and <http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/flanders181205.html>.
Yoshie Furuhashi <http://montages.blogspot.com> <http://monthlyreview.org> <http://mrzine.org>