Soaring municipal health costs cry out for a state overhaul
Submitted by seachange on Thu, 2010-03-11 04:38.
Boston Globe Editorial, March 2, 2010 Municipal health care costs in Massachusetts are unjustified and unsustainable. Curbing their excesses is an essential mission for the governor and Legislature. From 1999 to 2009, the cost of insuring municipal employees and retirees surged from 8 percent of the budgets of Massachusetts cities and towns to 14 percent, according to a Globe survey of 25 communities. That’s hundreds of millions of dollars that are not going to property-tax relief, schools, parks, law enforcement, or any other legitimate government purpose. These costs are a yoke around Massachusetts ... Soaring
City, town officials answer to the voters
Tom Pickett, Lawrence, Boston Globe, March 3, 2010 I’m confused by your March 2 editorial “Soaring municipal health costs cry out for a state overhaul.’’ One third of the way through, you admit that “workers and retirees represent a disproportionate political constituency in places where other citizens participate only sporadically in local politics.’’ To me, that translates to: People continue to vote for those who promise to maintain these benefits, and those who disagree don’t vote. My confusion arises from the Globe’s apparent attempt to dissuade these politicians from following the will of the people who elected them. © Copyright 2010 The New York Times Company