Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Holes in the filings include Stroger, Ryan, McKenna, Jackson, Hughes, Kelly, Boland
Next Post: Quinn appoints Colgan to ICC
Posted in:
* Eliminating free rides for seniors on mass transit isn’t a universally accepted idea. Some, like Sen. Rickey Hendon, are adamantly opposed…
State Senator Rickey Hendon says he’s against a bill that would eliminate free public transit rides for most senior citizens. The measure that’s backed by some high-ranking lawmakers would allow low-income seniors to continue riding free. But Hendon demands free rides for all seniors regardless of income. Though, he might make one exception.
And others admit the idea carries politcal risks…
Lawmakers acknowledged tweaking a benefit for seniors with a primary election nearing will make some politicians squeamish.
“It’s a very serious voting group,” Bassi said. But when the policy first emerged in 2008, “in my district, the majority of people said ‘it’s ridiculous the governor has done that,’” she recalled.
* The Question: In your opinion, how politically risky is this proposal to eliminate the free rides for all seniors, give them a 50 percent discount (which they had before) and use a “means test” to give free rides to those seniors making $22,200 or less?
Try to stick to the question and only the question, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 11:55 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Holes in the filings include Stroger, Ryan, McKenna, Jackson, Hughes, Kelly, Boland
Next Post: Quinn appoints Colgan to ICC
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Very low risk. A lot of seniors I’ve spoken with did not ask for this, didn’t want it, and would not object if it went away. Sen. Hendon can say what he wants, but he’s one vote when all is said and done. Do it now and let’s move forward.
Raising fares has more risk, but those of us who ride the CTA just keep taking it on the chin. If this means less of an increase, then I think the rest of the riders will more than overcome the objections of Sen. Hendon and a handful of others.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:02 pm
I agree with my brilliant colleague 47. He nailed it. This was a Blagojevich gimmick that deserves to die. Most seniors know that free is unrealistic in tough times. It will be ok.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:04 pm
This is not a politically risky move. It was a Blagojevich stunt and should be treated as such.
It becomes even less risky if office holders communicate to the voters that low income seniors will still receive a discounted ride.
Comment by Speaking at Will Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:09 pm
It does carry a political risk, albeit a milder one compared to other entitlements for the AARP crowd. If you’re a pol seeking to disassociate yourself with the appearance of the Blago taint, here’s a simple and quick way to do so.
Frankly, if Hendon is opposed, it’s definitely something that merits very serious consideration.
Comment by The Doc Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:09 pm
Not at all. No other major city does this. My grandparents were working class folks and managed to get along just fine having to pay for their public transit. I’m sure laid off workers downstate are thrilled to pay for the transit for laid off workers in chicago.
Hendon if memory serves was also the guy that asked for 40 million for a building at chicago state in his district. I don’t know where his district is, but I question what kind of people send someone like him to springfield.
Comment by shore Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:10 pm
Just wait for nonincumbent GOPs to nail anyone who votes for this one…if there is a vote
Comment by CircularFiringSquad Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:13 pm
I think this is all one way or the other. Either they keep it or get rid of it. A means-test is going to publicly embarrass grandma and grandpa.
Seniors do have less income than younger persons who are in their peak earning years. But no one wants get on the bus or the train and let everyone at the bus stop know that they are so poor that they can’t afford the ticket. That will be all around the neighborhood in no time.
Comment by Anon III Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:15 pm
Depends on where in the state you are. Of course Hendon with an E wants to keep handing out money, thats his job. That guy would vote for legislation that allowed him to hand out $100,000 a day of our money to strangers on the street.
How many competitive districts are there in areas where seniors are actually getting free rides? 1 maybe 2? I suppose that is all it takes for Madigan to deem it risky and put his finger down.
Comment by TaxThePoor Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:17 pm
“Very low risk.”
“This is not a politically risky move.”
“Not at all.”
That’s why it will never be repealed.
Moral of the story.
If you give something away, it’s hard to get it back.
Social Security
Comment by True Observer Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:18 pm
===I suppose that is all it takes for Madigan to deem it risky and put his finger down. ===
Bingo.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:18 pm
I think this depends on the district. In working-class and middle-class districts, this is probably low risk. I think it’s a higher risk in districts with significant poverty rates — even with the means testing, the vote will be seen as taking a benefit away.
It’s also probably very low risk in downstate districts, where I would venture that voting to keep the free rides would actually be the greater political risk.
Comment by the Other Anonymous Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:20 pm
ivoted4judy, I didn’t ask for your opinion about the law.
Answer the question, please.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:32 pm
I think it is politically risky to eliminate the program in certain parts of the city - those parts of the city where the voting blocs are older and lower income, and see the free rides as a way to get seniors out and going.
I think it is politically risky to back the program in certain suburbs, where people see it as free rides for well off seniors on the Metra.
Comment by George Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:33 pm
gg, I deleted your comment because you did not address the question.
That goes for everyone else from now on. Answer the question or be deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:35 pm
The other anonymous is correct, it depends upon the district. Im sure the free rides program is offensive to those from the Northern and Western ‘burbs. For most of the city and the South burbs its a riskier move to can the free rides.
Comment by Red Ranger Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:35 pm
Relatively low risks. Seniors are usually politically adept and realize the State’s and CTA’s budget woes require action.
Comment by downstate hick Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:38 pm
That being said - it would be very expensive and overly bureaucratic (to the State of Illinois) to implement the means test, even if done through Circuit Breaker.
Someone needs to call the CTA on their B.S. numbers when they claim the program costs them up to $60 million per year. What happens when they eliminate the program and it doesn’t save that $60 million? They only shoot themselves in the foot for the next budget year.
Comment by George Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:39 pm
High political risk.
Not all seniors will accept probing into their finances to determine if they qualify for the program or not. Most seniors I’ve spoken to who initially were opposed to the free rides now seem happy with the perk.
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:44 pm
Again, people, stick to the question.
I know most of you despise this program. We’ve had that debate here many times.
The question of the day is about the political ramifications of killing it, not how you feel about whether it should’ve existed.
Answer the question or be deleted.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:46 pm
Also, keep this in mind when answering. It’s from my syndicated column…
===The Republicans also have a big lead among senior citizens 65 and older, with 40 percent saying they’ll take a Republican ballot and just 33 percent saying they’ll cast their vote for a Democratic gubernatorial candidate. The Democrats have consistently won the senior vote by 10 points over the past two election cycles, so this is a very worrying result for that party and worth a closer look.===
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:50 pm
I’d say fairly low risk. The seniors I know saw it as Blago pandering to them–they liked the discount, but don’t like either paying nothing or full fare.
Comment by Cheryl44 Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:58 pm
I think the risk is low as long as there is a means based free ride available. I’m pretty sure grandma and grandpa who live in poverty are more worried about falling on the ice than being embarassed.
Comment by Small Town Liberal Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:58 pm
Tough question. I’m uncertain about the political risks. In theory, there could be a risk if the seniors don’t want to lose their free rides. Of course that only happens if seniors don’t understand that maintaining this “entitlement” might serious impact upon the transit they may rely on.
Comment by Levois Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 12:59 pm
There’s no political risk. This is something people have paid for their entire lives. Taking something away that most didn’t want or need in the first place isn’t bad politics. All it takes is an ad
“Senator… voted to cut your kids school (go to picture of student in front of broken down school) funds and raised taxes on you so….a millionaire from Kenilworth (picture of wealthy old woman in jewelry and furs in front of mansion) could ride for free.”
If republicans can only win elections with stuff like this, we aren’t making progress.
Comment by shore Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:07 pm
I’m gonna weigh in here because I think many of you are failing to see the obvious.
There is most certainly a risk. The debatable part is the size of the risk, I think. Perhaps I just worded the question inelegantly.
Think about the negative, targeted mail that can be sent on this issue against both Dems and Repubs. And with Dems lagging with the senior vote, that increases the risk for them.
So, I heartily disagree with those who say “there is no risk.” I’ve seen enough campaign ads over the years to know that this could be made into a barn-burner of an issue with a select group of voters, and which could then prove the key to winning or losing a district.
Don’t whistle past the graveyard, and don’t assume that your opinion is shared by others. The object here is to bring yourself out of your own opinionated head and focus on the topic at hand.
Think about it.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:15 pm
I suppose it’s not as risky as announcing the state will issue a 100% tax on Social Security and Medicare benefits. One question (aside from issues of morals or fiscal responsibility) that lawmakers must address is what percentage of senior citizens within the state actually use public transit? In other words, charging senior riders again might anger some, but would it be a large enough fraction to endanger a re-election bid?
It’s possible it is not that large a number. Then again, any attempt to cut services could be portrayed as “Senator X hates the elderly” in campaign ads. I can see legislators not wanting to invite the headache.
Comment by Boone Logan Square Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:24 pm
Shore, the opposite could be true as well though. Hendon can parade out ten busloads of seniors in wheelchairs and walkers crying about this program being cancelled making it impossible for them to visit their grandkids or go to their doctor or whatever.
Your commercial may play in Peoria well. Mine will play in the Chicago market better.
As Rich points out, Madigan and his party is in trouble with the seniors already. Giving them any more excuses to vote another way is not in his interests.
Right now, your commercials have not been run. If they are, there could be risk in competitive districts outside of Chicago for those that still support this.
Will or can someone make an issue out of it as you suggest? We don’t know yet, but it seems unlikely. That’s the risk, and the best bet is usually to do nothing and not rock the boat. Right now it looks like there is more political risk in getting rid of this program than in keeping.
Nevermind about the sanity of the program, we are governed by children protecting their sand boxes.
Comment by TaxThePoor Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:27 pm
I agree with Rich, there is certainly a risk here.
It looks like there is more risk in ending the program than in keeping it, but there could be risk for those who continue to support it in some districts, while the opposite is true in others. So Madigan will do nothing on this is my guess.
Would Madigan have let Blago do this to begin with if Madigan thought it couldn’t impact voters?
Comment by TaxThePoor Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:33 pm
Low risk for most incumbents, but there will be some Chicago Democratic representatives who will move to table the vote.
Comment by Honest Abe Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:33 pm
There is a political risk but it’s unpredictable…as unpredictable as guessing what the Speaker will deem risky.
How many candidates could there be that are willing to pose as a self-righteous leader on behalf of “The Greatest Generation”…oh wait.
Comment by COPN Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:34 pm
It would also help to know which seniors are really using this. If they are mostly seniors in the city that vote democrat anyway, who cares, they won’t vote for our side anyway.
To me this issue is a spine test. Lots of leaders talk about standing up and making big decisions, this one is a no-brainer.
Comment by shore Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:46 pm
47 is right. It’s a low risk. There is some risk, but I think that is mitigated by the legislature’s message that not only did they need to get rid of Blago, but they need to undo many of his inappropriate and unworkable policy ideas. If you wrap this in anti-Blago rhetoric, I think its an easy sell.
That quote makes is seem like Suzi Bassi was talking her self into voting to repeal.
Comment by siriusly Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 1:50 pm
My 85 year mother and the members of her senior club could care less about the free rides. They are all in the Proviso area on the west side and use Senior Services transport. Door to door for $1 with a driver who helps you. To them, this is a no brainer. Seems very low risk except for those who see an opportunity for a cheap news bite.
Comment by zatoichi Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:08 pm
Risky in the City of Chicago, not so much in the burbs and not at all south of I-80. If anything south of I-80 it could be a political win.
As for the burbs, most folks over 65 don’t use public transportation and those who do either work in the city (always fun seeing a guy in a suit on metra getting his free ride) or take Metra so infrequently that they have no reason to do what they need to do to get the pass.
Comment by OneMan Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:23 pm
If the powers that be thought there was not political risk in the issue, they would have moved to override Blagojevich’s amendatory veto on this issue back then. Instead, it was accepted.
They let him get away with this one, which tells me they did not want to challenge him on the issue. So Madigan must think there is a risk.
Comment by Old Milwaukee Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:26 pm
–” not at all south of I-80. If anything south of I-80 it could be a political win”.–
I’m not sure I’d bank on that being the case. Our seniors in areas with buses have gotten use to not paying. And citizens were sqealing now over kids having to pay adult fares. Students get a cut rate when showing student ids, but some kids between 4 and under six which were riding with a parents could not get the lower rate as no student id to show so instead of .50cent student, they had to pay full adult fare ($1).
I think this has some risk. Peoria area has citizens whining over 50 cents. I’d think if grandma takes grandkid around and squealed over 50 cents, she’d not gonna take well to her fee now going up.
Shore, this made me spill the coffee “It would also help to know which seniors are really using this. If they are mostly seniors in the city that vote democrat anyway, who cares, they won’t vote for our side anyway”. Touching thought to think your side only cares about citizens if they vote for you, could make me just wanna run right out and vote for that party–not.
Comment by Cindy Lou Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:37 pm
one man-exactly. I don’t see how it hurts a republican to cut services from voters he won’t get anyway.
For democrats however whose voters are using this in the city, it’s another matter.
Comment by shore Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:42 pm
I feel that there is some risk as this is a substantial group of voters. That being said, these are also the people who grew up in hard times fending for themselves at young ages. They are used to paying their way. I don’t think my parents would take the free rides if offered, but they are not in a dire situation. For those that aren’t able to afford the fares, the risk is much higher. To me, the real question is, what are the numbers that can/can’t afford to pay their way? I think that’s where the divide in the vote will be.
Comment by Cranky Old Man Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:44 pm
Do not see this as politically risky at all. Most seniors do not want something for nothing and likely those who do, do not vote. If there is one segment of the voting population who knows what “free ride” ultimately means, that is the seniors. They expect that which they earn and nothing more and nothing less. Free rides are for the very poor, pregnant women, military in uniform, and handicapped……and that doesn’t mean idiot politicians.
Comment by Justice Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:45 pm
===Most seniors do not want something for nothing ===
No disrespect to seniors at all, but that has definitely not been my experience.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:53 pm
There must be political risk. Every policy issue carries risk when deciding if it becomes law. The question is begged, though, if rescinding free senior rides is a signficant political risk for the Speaker and his party, then is Governor Blagojevich’s decision to include free senior rides as part of an AV validated as a good public policy?
Comment by Captain Flume Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 2:55 pm
I would say moderately high risk. Seniors are at a significant disadvantage in the current economy, and many have lost net worth during the recession.The governor is talking about a significant tax increase, property taxes are going up (in Cook, anyway) and there are other financial stressors including uncertainty about how health reform will affect Medicare and senior access to affordable health care. In the context of their individual finances, many middle class as well as poor seniors might see this as a
perk they should hang onto in a financially uncertain world. Even small amounts count over time. I think Quinn should say away from it.
Comment by cassandra Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:03 pm
From Madigan’s standpoint, there is fairly minimal risk. From an individual (especially Cook County-based) legislator standpoint, there is moderate risk. How so?
Start with the Cook County legislators. Their constituents are more likely to be the impoverished senior citizens who depend on public transit. While they may know that the hand-out was a blatant (if shrewd) move by Blago to taint the pool, they still benefit from the subsidy and no one likes paying for what they were getting for free. Now if the free rides are replaced by a means-based or 50% discount, the hit to the individual politician might be mitigated. It all depends on how it is framed. The worst thing that could happen to an individual legislator is to let his/her opponent frame the issue. This is one case where you have to control the debate (make it one of fiscal responsibility). The potential failure to do this is what leads to moderate risk.
For Madigan, though, the issue is low-risk. Why? Because even if X incumbent in Cook County loses, when are they going to lose? Not in the general election to a Republican, but in the primary against another Democrat. While Madigan might prefer a certain incumbent to a potentially independent-minded newcomer, shrooms seem to have a rapid learning curve when it comes to standing in line behind Madigan.
The biggest question mark is the suburbs. There might be a few votes that would get swayed by this, but I doubt it would be a sizable portion (enough to swing any but the tightest race) unless it was part of an identifiable pattern of dismissing senior concerns. I think the real budget crisis (and substantial corresponding cuts and tax hikes) will suck the vast majority of electoral oxygen out of this issue next year.
Comment by South Side Mike Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:13 pm
This is a statewide issue. One third of the state’s population does not receive any transit (free or paid for) so it is a non issue for them…probably favorable for getting rid of this benefit so that their taxes won’t be needed to continue this entitlement. Of the remaining 2/3 of the state’s population, the majority of seniors are not heavy transit users. The danger here is of a hard-core, urban bloc of seniors mobilizing against any politician in a transit-heavy, senior-heavy district who would acquiesce in overturning the policy. The numbers could probably be worked to allow this policy to die, and give political cover to the few legislators who would be vulnerable. Statewide, I don’t think Quinn is vulnerable on this to a perceptible margin were he to sign the bill.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:21 pm
Not really dangerous IMHO.
There will be those who will try to beat the issue to their advantage. The majority of the seniors I speak to are not afraid of paying their fair share. In fact, they may look poorly on someone who insist on a progrem they feel is a waste.
Comment by plutocrat03 Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:21 pm
A new beast has been created, and it’s an entitlement for seniors. While stating the obvious, seniors vote and are the direct beneficiaries of this program; it will be hard to get rid of this without any backlash. While it is not a fiscally smart program, especially considering the wave of baby-boomers who will be able to take advantage of this program soon and the fiscal strain that they will cause if this bill is left unfettered, we are currently in a recession so adding any costs to anyone is politically tough terrain.
While seniors are known to be the most frugal in our society, their main argument in protecting this entitlement program is that since its creation, they have been adding input to what is otherwise a receding economy. They may have to come up with figures to protect this argument, versus hearsay, but try countering this argument by telling any senior that they don’t contribute significantly to our economy. Good luck with that!!
I can see one or more seats being lost to this campaign slogan -”Insert name here-doesn’t care about seniors,” but it won’t be enough seats for Madigan to lose the Dem Majority, nor be concerned about. I say do it now, or early next year.
Further, I would rather see it done now, then after the baby-boomers have retired. With the majority of the baby-boomers still working, they understand the need for this program to go away, I’m afraid they won’t once they are retired and begin to benefit from it.
Comment by Kornfu Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:28 pm
Constituents have called and e-mailed here about this, only one threatened to ruin my guys career if he didn’t maintain his free ride. This senior is still working and at a very good paying job. I don’t think he would vote for my guy anyway. I have to say relatively low political risk.
And Rich, I agree with you - Seniors love free stuff! Ever see Seniors load bags of free stuff at a Senior fair? My Father-in-Law is the worst at free stuff. He can tell you where all the freebees are. Wew onder if that will be us one day.
Comment by Say WHAT? Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:32 pm
Any incumbent legislator in Chicago facing a primary is going to oppose repeal. Even if the risk is small, why give your opponent any ammunition? The only voters who would choose a candidate based on this issue are seniors perturbed that their perk has been canceled. The safest vote for a Chicago legislator is No.
Comment by Reformer Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:39 pm
HIGH Risk I agree with Rich,I take Mom and some of her friends to lunch (all in they’re 80s) and the crackers, rolls, anything that isn’t tied down are swept, and I don’t blame ‘em for the most part. We are at the fringe of seniors that have seen things we don’t want to see and hopefully won’t see, God willing. And in my experience thay ALL vote!
Comment by bwana Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:46 pm
its low risk. I haven’t met a senior who really wants it and more to the point I’ve met many who laugh and say “thanks to Rod I can ride for Free! What an idiot!”
if the question is framed the way is should be, an additional $37 million to the region’s transit system or an $1.25/ride (the reduced fare for trains) i think support will be overwhelming to repeal.
Comment by PJS Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:50 pm
Not using the free transit I would still guess moderate to high risk due to the nature of the beast. I know if I got a free ride on the CapFax subscription and then they tried to take it away I would work hard against them! I know I deserve it and we all know Rich can afford it with ease.
Comment by A Citizen Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 3:50 pm
Relatively low risk. It hasn’t been in effect that long, so I don’t think there’s much equity there.
Those that benefit the most from the current policy would probably qualify under a means test.
True Observer — Social Security? You mean that trust program that lifted more people out of poverty than any other in history of the world (psst: that’s a good thing)?
You know, like George Bailey said; the people who do most of the working, living and dying in our society?
Comment by wordslinger Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:10 pm
Most seniors I know wouldn’t be caught dead on the CTA, however,now that they have an entitlement you better not try taking it away. I would wait until after the election if I was them.
That being said how does this cost $60 million? Does it cost them money when a PACE bus runs with only 38 empty seats instead of 40?
High risk-very low reward.
Comment by Bill Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:41 pm
===Does it cost them money when a PACE bus runs with only 38 empty seats instead of 40?===
Good point.
Comment by Rich Miller Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:44 pm
Low risk. Voters have been more than ready to hear of these kinds of cuts for years.
Comment by VanillaMan Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 4:51 pm
I think minimal risk. Having Seniors who can pay, pay 50%, and less than 22K free. Hardly anyone will be upset with that, especially if the fares don’t go up because of it.
Comment by Third Generation Chicago Native Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 5:00 pm
I’m going to tweak my earlier answer.
I still say there is low risk, but I think that risk drops to almost zero if it is packaged with maintaining some form of benefit (i.e. the reduced fares of days gone by). If you preserve at least a 50% off benefit of being older, then I just can’t imagine this being a big deal with anything but a handful of seniors.
Comment by Chicago Cynic Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 5:30 pm
This isn’t on a par with taxing retirement income, the true 3rd rail for Illinois seniors. Those seniors who have an entitlement mentality because they were children in the Great Depression also have common sense. Eliminating free rides for seniors and going back to the pre-Blago era of 50% discounts is common sense. Adding in a means test for seniors with greater financial need will ensure those affected who might otherwise scream bloody murder is a nice touch.
Will some politicians demagogue the heck out of this as they shamelessly pander for senior votes? You bet, but I don’t think this little issue has the kind of traction others seem to see.
But Bill and others raise a good point: there is almost no reward for reversing this. I’ll concede that point, and as we all know, this is Illinois and our politicians do love them some rewards.
Comment by 47th Ward Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 6:03 pm
I was going to make two points here, but Bill nailed my first one. As he says, the reward, financial or political, is not proportional to the risk here. It’s not like any mass transit agency added rail cars or put bigger busses on line to take care of Uncle Herb and Aunt Gladys riding free. Besides, CTA/RTA numbers crunching is historically about as credible as U of I admissions policy. (Please don’t delete me for that, Rich.) Mushroom or Madigan, why rile up the voters anywhere when the CTA will still be broke after the riling?
Secondly, I can tell you from my personal and work history with seniors that many would forgo the 50% off rather than be “means tested” by a government worker.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 6:13 pm
Low risk, but the risk will increase yearly. Right now it’s the “Blago screwed-up transit plan”. In a few years it will seem like an entitlement. The time to take it away is right now. At this point, 1/2 price will still seem more than fair.
Comment by Bobs yer Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 6:15 pm
Low risk. Everyone, including seniors, know it was a gimmick.
Comment by CapFaxFan Monday, Oct 26, 09 @ 8:01 pm
One point that hasn’t been addressed is that seniors may be concerned about something being taken away from them, even if they don’t use it. While the downstate seniors, who have no transit options, could care less, in the RTA serviced areas this issue could be at least a moderate concern. Unfortunately, people today (seniors & others) have developed a sense of entitlement, transit & otherwise, that is bankrupting our government bodies. Once something is provided by the government, it is expected that it will be provided forever. While free rides for seniors is probably not the biggest issue on the table, there will be very vocal opposition to any attempts to repeal it.
On the other hand, a case could be made that if free rides are continued there could be nothing to ride on. If the program is continued there will have to be cuts made in service, with the possibility of some routes being eliminated. I wonder what the reaction will be if seniors need to walk farther to get their free rides ?
In conclusion, I believe that a legislator backs ending the funding, or modifying it in some fashion, he or she will take some heat. But most legislators have safe seats. I would be suprised if this issue takes any of them down, no matter which side they take.
Comment by Fed Up Tuesday, Oct 27, 09 @ 9:21 am