MTA's OT stunning amid fare hikes

MTA’s OT stunning amid fare hikes

While the Metropolitan Transportation Authority is once again raising tolls and fares, it’s disheartening to read that its overtime “surged” to $1.3 billion with overtime alone of $200,000 going to each of many MTA workers — with total annual pay being over $300,000 “MTA’s OT bill ‘surged’ in ’22,” News, July 28].

Why can’t the MTA board monitor and control this ongoing, significant issue? Why isn’t the MTA held accountable for this? Does this happen in the rest of the business world?

Unfortunately, it’s too easy for the MTA to raise fares and tolls. The “hearings” they hold about rate hikes are a joke. They apparently mean little. It is a sad and unfortunate situation.

— H. Lloyd Miller, Jericho

Tucked into the recent MTA fare hike was the elimination of the 20-trip ticket. This was done with little notice, and it amounts to a sizable rate hike for those, like me, who continue to work a hybrid schedule.

The MTA can easily see that the sales for this ticket plan are steady. Commuting only two or three days a week makes other options like the 10-trip or weekly ticket unfeasible, and buying a monthly ticket that will not be used for more than half the month makes even less sense.

In effect, the fare hike for the many of us using the 20-trip ticket will be over $100 per month, or 30%, much more than the 4% rate hike across the board.

I, and many others, urge the MTA not to eliminate this ticket option.

— Andrew Skibins, Greenlawn

Maybe it is time that all MTA workers and all government workers lose their pensions if found guilty of doing anything illegal against the public.

They may think twice before committing a crime.

— Bob Krauss, Plainview

Time to retire for McConnell, Feinstein

Power is like a drug that they don’t want to stop taking [“McConnell says he’ll stay in post as leader,” Nation & World, July 29].

It’s time that Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) and Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), a member of the Senate Appropriations Committee, retire and pay attention to focus on their health and not their powerful political positions.

— Wayne Mortak, West Babylon

Don’t tell readers who appointed the judge

I am getting frustrated by the increasing politicization of our judicial process, and it appears that one of the causes of this dangerous trend is the way the media reports judicial decisions. For example, the article describing how a Delaware judge threw a monkey wrench into Hunter Biden’s plea deal for tax avoidance named the judge, saying she was appointed by former President Donald Trump [“Hunter Biden’s plea deal stalled by judge’s concerns,” News, July 27].

Why was it necessary to do that? Who cares who appointed a judge? It is a judge’s job to properly interpret the law, not to reach decisions that will please the person who made the appointment. It’s almost as if the media are trying to plant a thought in the reader’s mind that a judge disregarded the law and reached a decision based on political considerations.

Just report the facts of the decision and skip the subjective comments about who appointed the judge. If a publication wants to disagree with the decision, that’s what the editorial page is for.

— Arthur M. Shatz, Astoria

Getting unclaimed state funds is easy

The online claim form provided by the state comptroller’s office included in your article on “Unclaimed funds” was very user friendly [“Unclaimed funds,” LI Business, July 23].

When I saw my name on the list of unclaimed funds, I filled out the online form in less than two minutes, submitted it electronically and within 10 days, I received the check in the mail. It was easy to claim these funds [“Unclaimed funds? Don’t even bother,” Letters, July 27].

— Christina Paino, Hauppauge

Our immigrant parents followed the rules

My parents and my wife’s parents both immigrated to the United States during the early part of the 1900s. Both followed the law and had to be sponsored by an American citizen who guaranteed they would not impose any burden on this country.

The purpose of the U.S. immigration policy was to protect our borders and allow those from other countries to come here under the constraint of quotas and fill jobs that this country needed filled “Securing Southern border is U.S. duty,” Letters, July 27].

Over a hundred years later, because of the failure of the federal government to protect its borders and regulate immigrant quotas, states are kept from protecting their own borders. They are not allowed to manage their own immigration.

How did this happen? Do we need a nationwide protest? Why can’t Congress address this and bring justice to Texas?

— Arthur Mann Jr., Coram