The Boston Globe has an editorial against an increase in the pensions of retired Boston workers. That’s not unusual, the Globe is a big basher of public unions. What’s interesting is that the editorial has changed. Here’s the current first paragraph (by the way, this 3% increase on the first $12,000 of their pension means the average increase will be about 1%–wow, that’s an unconscioucible):
Retired employees of the city of Boston have been relatively lucky in the recent downturn, receiving 3 percent cost-of-living increases on the first $12,000 of their pensions even in years when Social Security benefits — the prime source of income for many private retirees — have been flat. Now, however, some political leaders want to bump up the cost-of-living raise for retired city workers even further. Mayor Menino wants to raise the annual increase from $360 to $390, while City Council President Steve Murphy is pushing a much larger $90 hike. In better economic times, giving an extra boost to city retirees would be honorable; this year, however, it’s too much of a stretch.
and here’s the old one:
It’s always tempting for politicians seeking to attract or solidify support to promise bigger cost-of-living adjustments for retirees. That’s now happening in Boston. Mayor Menino wants to bump the annual adjustment from $360 to $390, while City Council President Steve Murphy is pushing a $90 increase. It’s easy to say, well, that seems like short money, so why not? Actually, there are any number of reasons why this is bad idea.
The second paragraph (which is in the paper copy I received) starts:
For starters, the public sector should not offer a demonstrably better benefit structure than the private sector.
That’s a pretty stunning statement, which might be why it was dropped from the rewrite. It’s a sort of reverse communism–workers can only make what the least makes, a cut by one business should mean a cut to everyone’s wages I guess.