CHICAGO (CBS) — A Metra fare increase will go into effect at the start of February that will raise the annual cost to ride the train by $141 for those buying a monthly pass.
Metra said the fare increases, which take effect Feb. 1, include:
• a 25-cent increase on one-way tickets;
• a $2.75 increase on 10-ride tickets; and
• an $11.75 increase on monthly tickets.
The revenue brought in by the fare increase will be used to generate $16.1 million to fund the transit agency’s backlog of capital improvement projects, things needed to keep trains and stations in good repair, Metra said.
“We understand raising fares will affect our riders, but this increase will be strictly allocated as an investment in our trains and our system,” Metra Executive Director/CEO Don Orseno said in a statement.
Metra said it has less than $300 million to spend on projects annually over the next four years, which is $900 million less than it needs.
(Source: Sun-Times Media Wire © Chicago Sun-Times 2017. All Rights Reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.)

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: 3.6

© Source: http://chicago.cbslocal.com/2017/01/20/metra-fares-to-increase-in-february/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

The incoming President, Donald Trump, told the Brexiteer Michael Gove he would come up with a UK-US trade deal that was « good for both sides ».
The man who styled himself « Mr Brexit » praised the vote in an interview for The Times .
His belief that Britain is « doing great » is in marked contrast to the warning of current President, Barack Obama, that Brexit would put the country « at the back of the queue » for trade deals.
But while Brexiteers may be chuffed to have a friend in the White House, the markets think somewhat differently.
Over the past few days, reports emerged that the Prime Minister, Theresa May, is to outline plans for a « hard Brexit » with no guaranteed access to the single market in a speech on Tuesday.
The pound slipped to its lowest level against the dollar in three months , below $1.20, before creeping up slightly on Monday.
Nigel Green, founder and chief executive of the financial planners deVere Group, said on Friday: « A hard Brexit can be expected to significantly change the financial landscape. As such, people should start preparing for the shifting environment sooner rather than later.  »
It’s hard to know the exact economic impact of Brexit, because Brexit – officially leaving the EU – hasn’t happened yet. Brexiteers like Gove have attacked « experts » who they claim are simply talking down the economy. It is true that because of the slump in sterling, Britain’s most international companies in the FTSE 100 are thriving.
But the more that the government is forced to explain what it is hoping for, the better sense traders have of whether it will involve staying in the single market. And it seems that whatever the President-Elect says, they’re not buying it.
Look, I don’t mean to be funny, but is there something in the water supply? When Mark Lilla wrote his jeremiad against « identity liberalism » in the New York Times , it was comprehensively picked over and rebutted. But this zombie take has risen again. In the last 24 hours, all these tweets have drifted across my timeline:
And then this (now deleted, I think, probably because I was mean about it on Twitter).
And finally, for the hat-trick .
Isn’t it beautiful to see a Blairite, a Liberal Leaver and a Corbynite come together like this? Maybe there is a future for cross-spectrum, consensual politics in this country.
These are all versions of a criticism which has swilled around since Bernie Sanders entered the US presidential race, and ran on a platform of economic populism. They have been turbocharged by Sanders’ criticisms since the result, where he blamed Clinton’s loss on her attempt to carve up the electorate into narrow groups. And they are now repeated ad nauseam by anyone wanting to sound profound: what if, like, Black Lives Matter are the real racists, yeah? Because they talk about race all the time.
This glib analysis has the logical endpoint that if only people didn’t point out racism or sexism or homophobia, those things would be less of a problem. Talking about them is counterproductive, because it puts people’s backs up (for a given definition of « people »). She who smelt it, dealt it.
Now, I have strong criticisms of what I would call Pure Identity Politics, unmoored from economics or structural concerns. I have trouble with the idea of Caitlyn Jenner as an « LGBT icon », given her longstanding opposition to gay marriage and her support for an administration whose vice-president appears to think you can electrocute the gay out of people. I celebrate female leaders even if I don’t agree with their politics, because there shouldn’t be an additional Goodness Test which women have to pass to be deemed worthy of the same opportunities as men. But I don’t think feminism’s job is done when there are simply a few more female CEOs or political leaders, particularly if (as is now the case) those women are more likely than their male peers to be childless. Role models only get you so far. Structures are important too.
I also think there are fair criticisms to be made of the Clinton campaign, which was brave – or foolish, depending on your taste – to associate her so explicitly with progressive causes. Stephen Bush and I have talked on the podcast about how hard Barack Obama worked to reassure White America that he wasn’t threatening, earning himself the ire of the likes of Cornel West. Hillary Clinton was less mindful of the feelings of both White America and Male America, running an advert explicitly addressed to African-Americans , and using (as James Morris pointed out to me on Twitter ) the slogan « I’m With Her ».
Watching back old Barack Obama clips (look, everyone needs a hobby), it’s notable how many times he stressed the « united » in « united states of America ». It felt as though he was trying to usher in a post-racial age by the sheer force of his rhetoric.
As Obama told Ta-Nehisi Coates during his last days in office, he thought deeply about how to appeal to all races:
« How do I pull all these different strains together: Kenya and Hawaii and Kansas, and white and black and Asian—how does that fit? And through action, through work, I suddenly see myself as part of the bigger process for, yes, delivering justice for the [African American community] and specifically the South Side community, the low-income people—justice on behalf of the African American community. But also thereby promoting my ideas of justice and equality and empathy that my mother taught me were universal. So I’m in a position to understand those essential parts of me not as separate and apart from any particular community but connected to every community.  »
Clinton’s mistake was perhaps that she thought this caution was no longer needed.
So there are criticisms of « identity politics » that I accept, even as I wearily feel that – like « neoliberalism » – it has become a bogeyman, a dumpster for anything that people don’t like but don’t care to articulate more fully.
But there are caveats, and very good reasons why anyone pretending to a sophisticated analysis of politics shouldn’t say that « identity politics caused Trump ».
The first is that if you have an identity that any way marks you out from the norm, you can’t change that. Hillary Clinton couldn’t not be the first woman candidate from a major party running for the US presidency. She either had to embrace it, or downplay it. Donald Trump faced no such decision.
The second is that, actually, Clinton didn’t run an explicitly identity-focused campaign on the ground, at least not in terms of her being a woman. Through the prism of the press, and because of the rubbernecker’s dream that is misogyny on social media, her gender inevitably loomed large. But as Rebecca Solnit wrote in the LRB :
« The Vox journalist David Roberts did a word-frequency analysis on Clinton’s campaign speeches and concluded that she mostly talked about workers, jobs, education and the economy, exactly the things she was berated for neglecting. She mentioned jobs almost 600 times, racism, women’s rights and abortion a few dozen times each. But she was assumed to be talking about her gender all the time, though it was everyone else who couldn’t shut up about it.  »
My final problem with the « identity politics caused Trump » argument is that it assumes that explicit appeals to whiteness and masculinity are not identity politics. That calling Mexicans « rapists » and promising to build a wall to keep them out is not identity politics. That promising to « make America great again » at the expense of the Chinese or other trading partners is not identity politics. That selling a candidate as an unreconstructed alpha male is not identity politics. When you put it that way, I do accept that identity politics caused Trump. But I’m guessing that’s not what people mean when they criticise identity politics.
Let’s be clear: America is a country built on identity politics. The « all men » who were created equal notably excluded a huge number of Americans. Jim Crow laws were nothing if not identity politics. The electoral college was instituted to benefit southern slave-owners. This year’s voting restrictions disproportionately affected populations which lean Democrat. There is no way to fight this without prompting a backlash: that’s what happens when you demand that the privileged give up some of their perks.
I don’t know what the « identity politics caused Trump » guys want gay rights campaigners, anti-racism activists or feminists to do. Those on the left, like Richard Burgon, seem to want a « no war but the class war » approach, which would be all very well if race and gender didn’t intersect with economics (the majority of unpaid care falls squarely on women; in the US, black households have far fewer assets than white ones.)
Those on the right, like Daniel Hannan, seem to just want people banging on about racism and homophobia to shut up because he, personally, finds it boring. Perhaps they don’t know any old English poetry with which to delight their followers instead. (Actually, I think Hannan might have hit on an important psychological factor in some of these critiques: when conversations centre on anti-racism, feminism and other identity movements, white men don’t benefit from their usual unearned assumption of expertise in the subject at hand. No wonder they find discussion of them boring.)
Both of these criticisms end up in the same place. Pipe down, ladies. By complaining, you’re only making it worse. Hush now, Black Lives Matter: white people find your message alienating. We’ll sort out police racism… well, eventually. Probably. Just hold tight and see how it goes. Look, gay people, could you be a trifle… less gay? It’s distracting.
I’m here all day for a discussion about the best tactics for progressive campaigners to use. I’m sympathetic to the argument that furious tweets, and even marches, have limited effect compared with other types of resistance.
But I can’t stand by while a candidate wins on an identity-based platform, in a political system shaped by identity, and it’s apparently the fault of the other side for talking too much about identity.

Similarity rank: 0.3

Sentiment rank: 1.3

© Source: http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2017/01/donald-trump-promises-quick-brexit-trade-deal-pound-still-falls
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

You’ve heard this before: Failing to plan is planning to fail. This couldn’t be more true than when it comes to retirement. Simply put, planning increases the chances that you’ll have a successful retirement. And planning is much better than winging it, which so many people do.
According to a recent survey conducted by the Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies (TCRS), more than one-third (37 percent) of workers don’t have any strategy for their retirement. These people are truly winging it.
The study also found that almost half (47 percent) of all workers have a strategy, but it’s not written down. Such a plan is better than nothing, but most likely it’ll be incomplete.
Fewer than one in five workers (16 percent) have a written plan, which is ideal. Research in behavioral economics shows that having a written strategy increases a person’s commitment to carrying out the plan.
So what should go into a successful retirement strategy? The TCRS study provides a handy checklist of factors to consider. Here’s the list (the percentage beside each factor shows the prevalence of workers who include the factor in their plan):
The reality is, a robust retirement strategy for an older worker should consider all these factors. The only possible exception: Estate planning might not be important for some people because they may not have heirs they want to leave money to, or they don’t have enough savings for a meaningful legacy.
In particular, the last item — contingency planning — is particularly critical for older workers. Various surveys show that roughly half of all current retirees stopped working sooner than they expected, often due to a health crisis or layoff. A contingency plan to address an unplanned retirement could include identifying backup bridge jobs; knowing how you might immediately reduce your living expenses, including downsizing or reducing auto expenses; and making sure you could continue your health insurance.
Here’s one important retirement planning item that’s often overlooked and not on the TCRS list: Planning for much more additional time with your spouse or partner, if you’re married or living with someonw. Plan for the activities that you’ll do together as well as the time you’ll spend apart.
While it’s important to spend time together, it’s also essential to nurture your own identity and to agree on the appropriate balance with your partner. It’s also a smart idea to make sure your spouse or partner understands all the important factors in your retirement plan.
One final thought: Working with a retirement adviser is a good way to increase the odds of retirement success, yet only 39 percent of workers in the TCRS survey report that they worked with an adviser. If you decide to do so, you’ll want to find an adviser who’s skilled at planning retirement income and is compensated without conflicts so he or she has your best interests at heart.
It will take some time and effort to develop a robust retirement strategy that works for you. And while nobody said that being retired for 20 to 30 years or more would be easy, it should be worth the effort, considering what’s at stake.

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: -1

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/winging-it-is-no-way-to-plan-for-retirement/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.

Allegations by U. S. financial regulators that Navient, the nation’s largest student loan servicing company, misapplied payments and steered graduates into higher-cost repayment plans, underscores the complexity — and risks — of paying off college debt.
The suit comes at a time when the nation’s graduates are more indebted than ever. Some $1.3 trillion in student debt remains outstanding, and a whopping 11 percent of these loans — held by some 3.9 million borrowers — are in default.
The government’s consumer protection arm maintains that both lenders and schools have misled student loan borrowers, contributing to a nagging debt crisis that has ensnared not only 44 million younger graduates, but also a record number of retirees. The Navient suit, filed Wednesday, is just the latest salvo in a continuing effort by the federal Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to help graduates and their families, many of whom are buried in debt.
Navient denies wrongdoing and claims the suit is politically motivated. Until the dispute is settled — in our out of court — the company’s borrowers have little recourse but to complain about alleged past transgressions, said Persis Yu, director of the National Consumer Law Center’s Student Loan Borrower Assistance Project.
However, it behooves all students and graduates to understand how loan repayment options have changed and what their current options are. If you have a federally guaranteed student loan, there should be no need to default no matter your income, experts maintain.
Here are six things you should know about repaying student loans.
However, stretched-out repayment and income-sensitive repayment plans are likely to be the better option for graduates on a tight budget. The income-based repayment plans set monthly payments at a percentage of the borrower’s discretionary income. If you have no discretionary income, the PAYE and REPAYE programs could set your payment amount at zero.
But you can also simply switch to an income-based repayment plan that would set your payments at zero. The benefit of choosing income-based repayment in this situation is that these programs forgive any remaining loan balance after 20 to 25 years, depending on the program. And, under these programs, you get credit for making on-time monthly loan payments, even when your payment amount is set at $0.
Discharges, however, are only allowable if you were attending the school within 120 days of its closure and were unable to transfer your units to another institution. Loan discharge is also likely to boost your eligibility for future federal student loans, if you choose to restart your college career elsewhere.
This is a particularly important distinction for graduates who are considering consolidating and/or refinancing their loans. If you consolidate or refinance with a private lender, you may be able to secure a lower interest rate (if your credit is good), but you are likely to lose your right to repay based on your income. You would also lose the ability to discharge debt through the previously mentioned loan forgiveness programs. Don’t convert federal loans to private loans without carefully examining all the consequences.
In addition, borrowers who believe they’ve been misled or improperly steered into a higher-cost repayment plan, can complain to the CFPB. Though no option may appear perfect when you’re struggling with student loan repayment, the worst option is default. Default triggers a host of additional fees and charges, which can haunt you for life and often can’t even be discharged in bankruptcy.

Similarity rank: 0

Sentiment rank: -1.3

© Source: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/6-things-student-borrowers-should-know/
All rights are reserved and belongs to a source media.