At the end of last week, I wrote a post about how Tom Reilly, and then Deval Patrick, took a stand against the Legislature as it attempted to create a special pension for former State Representative Michael Ruane. The circumstances are indeed sad – Mr. Ruane is suffering from a terminal illness. However, Mr. Ruane had never paid into the state pension system. Moreover, when the Legislature made it possible for Mr. Ruane to easily enter the state pension system in the mid-1990’s, Mr. Ruane chose not to take that opportunity.
I wrote the post to highlight two points. The first point is global: that the Democratic nominee will have to exhibit an ability to stand up to the Legislature, because he will be running against their perceived excesses. The second point highlighted that this was yet another example of why Tom Reilly is not an “insider” candidate. This morning, however, we are learning who may be the “go along, to get along candidate.” It’s “Mr. Results” himself, Chris Gabrieli.
According this morning’s Boston Globe story, Representatives Colleen Garry and David Nangle rescinded their support of Reilly due to his stance on the special pension. And whom did they switch their support to? None other than the one Democratic candidate who chose not to stand up to them: Chris Gabrieli. And what was the best that Gabrieli’s campaign spokesperson could muster: “We have no desire to interfere in that process,” he said. “It is not an issue in the campaign.”
Personally, I don’t think that is good enough for our party’s nominee.
The House ultimately passed a revenue neutral verson of the Ruane bill, but only after Reilly and Patrick, among others, offered their very legitimate criticism. Chris Gabrieli still remains silent on the issue.
One thing is for sure: the voters have shown a preference for candidates that will serve as a check and balance on the Legislature and Chris Gabrieli is proving anything but that.
If Gabrieli doesn’t think that this will resonate with voters he has no public pulse taking ability.
<
p>
Kudos to Reilly for being first on this and a hat tip to Deval Patrick
This is Healey’s entire campaign – “you need me to keep the legislature in check.” This move by Garry/Nangle is emblematic of why that strategy has legs: it looks like (and, in fact, is) the legislature caring more about taking care of its own than about taking care of the public.
I agree that Dem Gov candidates need to show they’ll stand up to DiMasi and Trav.
<
p>
I’m not sure, however, that KH could exploit Gabs on this particular issue, however – while voters may realize that a giveaway is wrong, it’s implausible to generate outrage against helping a guy, even if “undeserving”, who is dying from cancer.
Anyone remember Willie Horton? It doesn’t always matter whether the issue is significant as an intellectual matter in politics. It often matters if it has an emotional appeal, and the state legislature trying to hijack public money to line the pockets of one of its own is tailor-made for Ms. Healey. The only issue that would be better for her is if a majority of Massachusetts had voted for a tax rate of 5.0% and then Democrats started to argue that they knew better than the people what the tax rate should be.
Bob, did your record player break? Because all I keep hearing about is a resolution that was voted on years ago while my mother’s property tax has gone up well over a thousand dollars (I think it’s getting to be close to 2k) during the same time period because we’ve had 3, count them, THREE, prop 2 1/2 overrides.
<
p>
Your broken record is getting old. I’d bet all the money I have that voters, if given the choice, would prefer property tax relief to a $200 check in the mail.
<
p>
Get a brain and stop tossing out rhetoric that just doesn’t fly anymore. Statistics from half a decade ago just doesn’t cut it, especially given the different economic reality of today.
Try a binding law. And you ignore Bob’s point–it’s the emotional argument that Healey will bang over the swing voters head for the 6 weeks between the primary and the general, with her $10 million ad campaign.
<
p>
In that case, all the correct logic you outlined will get lost and swing voters, who won’t give this one bit of thought until the week before the election, will buy Healey’s drool hook-line-and-sinker.
<
p>
You are part of the “don’t have a clue” crew. This has played out the same damn way election after election and to expect a different outcome is the definition of stupid.
Why can’t Reilly win for $200. My point is that this is a MAJOR issue for voters and almost no-one will accept the convoluted property tax correlation argument. But, you’re welcome to keep trying! At least Frank gets it. Hurrah!
As a Globe columnust (Steve baily?) pointed out last week, Hillman retired at age 50 with a pension of $100,000 per year and nothing she purposes would change that.
<
p>
I’m not advocating this but, the biggest group of huge pensions being paid out are to police–mostly state police and Healey’s plan does nothing to curb these huge pensions. No one has the political guts to take on public safety pensions. She just wants to stop the other state workers who are averaging 30,000 a year pensions.
The $30,000 a year crew aren’t hurt by this, Frank. It helps them by making the system more stable for bona fide full time workers. It WILL hurt those who parachute in for the Three Highest Years, and other such lucky winners.
Who are making the top pensions–law enforcement. Sure you can tweak the current rules to eliminate the 17 years as a 1500 a year selectman, then 3 years at Massport for 125,000 and yes, eliminate those silly county and local pension authorities But republicans have as much if not more pension waste on the hands as the dems. Remember that reformer Peter Foreman–getting a full frigging pension at age 44. Give me a break with the holier than thou attitude about Healey saving the taxpayers money. Not happening.
<
p>
As for the great Healey reformer–her plans does NOTHING to stop that joke down in Brockton who was a cop AND a county sheriff–taking a couple of hundred sick days to do both jobs.
<
p>
And switching out pensions for 401ks makes the Fidelities of the world money and not the state workers–heck my 401k only been moving sideways.
<
p>
Nope, Healey is playing a con game–not ending abuses or ending the sweetheart pension deals both you and I hate–to give mutal funds more profits.
After reading the wonderful Globe article on Gabrieli and then MavDem’s post I have to wonder whether Gabrieli is really the best choice to win.
<
p>
Question: are the insiders who are pushing Gabrieli as the best candidate the same ones who advised the Kerry ’04 campaign? In that case we’re in a heap of trouble if this guy wins in November.
<
p>
Gabrieli is politics-as-usual. And that won’t be hard for general election voters to see, should he win the primary.
<
p>
So if we’ve seen that it takes more than just money to win (the Republicans ran a better 50-state ground game than the Dems in 2004) and that Gabrieli has proven time and again that all the money in the world can’t get him the win, why are we supporting him??
<
p>
What’s Einstein’s definition of insanity? Doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result. It hasn’t worked for the past 16 years, why should it work now??
Really, offering — the failure to oppose a pension for a sick man — as a significant, campaign-defining criticism just shows how little material Gabrieli’s opponents have to work with. Just because the electorate generally dislikes the Legislature doesn’t mean they’ll rally against every little thing they do. Even if they are looking for someone to oppose the lawmakers, Gabrieli’s decision not to engage this item doesn’t define his relationship to them. It could just as easily be taken as a refusal to be dragged into their low-level machinations, implying his focus is on much bigger issues. I think this stance is consistent with Gabrieli’s image as a private-sector big-picture policy guy — the opposite of an “insider” — which will appeal to the majority of voters.
but taken as a part of the larger framework which Healey has already invoked (the need for a check to those Godless hippies and tree-huggers in the Legislature) this will roast Gabrieli, and will roast the Dems if we give him the nod Sept. 19.
<
p>
I like Gabrieli’s stand on many of the issues (from the hesitant tax-rollback to competent, job-creating government) but am quite apprehensive because of his previous campaign record and his sitting-duck status as a party insider (which he inavriably is, much like Tom Reilly.) Gabrieli is the opposite of electable, he’s Shannon O’Brien redux.
Nobody has said this will be THE issue, but it is certainly, AN issue.
<
p>
Tom Reilly, Deval Patrick, and Chris Gabrieli are running for Governor. As Governor, Chris Gabrieli would have to decide whether or not he is going to sign this bill. That is why his spokesperson’s comment (
We have no desire to interfere in that process," he said.It is not an issue in the campaign.”) is so incredibly weak. This is what Governors are required to do. They don’t get to pick and choose which issues to talk about because it is convenient. And frankly, by picking up two State Representatives by staying quiet, I don’t want to hear that Chris Gabrieli is being apolitical by avoiding a position. These men are all running professional campaigns. Every decision is weighed, including Gabrieli’s non-position – and he has benefited to a degree. (Although I would argue that it will hurt in the long run.)<
p>
Chris Gabrieli had an opportunity to stand up and be accounted for and his response was to defer to the Legislature. That is a losing message. It is precisely what will NOT get a Democrat elected Governor in 2006.
I certainly agree with Maverick on this. It is pretty easy to picture the ads now: “Statehouse insiders pushed through a midnight bill to line the pockets of one of their own? And what did Chris Gabrieli have to say? ‘We don’t want to interfere in the process’ The same process that brought us (list of major and minor legislative boondoggles). The process needs some interfering. (Insert vaguely true nice things about Kerry Healey here)”
<
p>
I am not saying I believe that, but that’s what they’d do. Kudos to Reilly and Patrick.
Does this make any difference to anyone? It was posted as a comment by Capital D
to Maverick Dems original Post?
<
p>
“If anyone cared to follow the debate on the Michael Ruane pension, they would know that the lead sponsor Rep. Angelo Scaccia offered an amendment that actually changed the bill so the state would receive the full amount of what former Rep. Ruane owes to the pension fund had he originally paid in from day 1. The proceeds will be realized from the sale of his HOUSE after his and his wife’s death.
<
p>
“Any legislator would file special legislation for a constituent if it was for a just cause. A friend of mine actually benefited from a special sick leave bank created JUST FOR HER by her Representative. Another person I know benefited from a special service buy back program created just for him. And my Rep. (a Dem) has always been there for me and my community.
<
p>
Let us not eat our youngâ¦.Public service is a good thing and when we attack âThe Legislatureâ as a group we debase this noble profession and the leaders of our own party!”
The creation of special Sick Leave banks – when a system is already in place which allows you to DONATE sick and vacation time, and use it in an emergency? And these people didn’t participate, and so get special legislation like the Rep. did?
<
p>
Think THAT’S gonna get a lot of sympathy from somebody that doesn’t even HAVE sick time, like a self employed carpenter, much less the ability to stockpile it?
<
p>
It will get Gabreli votes in the primary from union state workers who don’t want their applecart upset, and will kill him in the general, when NON-UNION voters show up.
…infrastructure is collapsing, vetoing of flood control projects, education problems, housing squeeze and so on, yet Republicans want to wave the bloody flag of special pensions for one person, beat up on immigrants and gays to win elections and then go on ignoring the real issues.
Pity the Legislature is caught up in the dangers of fluffernutters and cannot act upon them.
<
p>
We BOTH know that any veto can be overridden with a snap of Trav’s fingers – but until the North End floods, he and DiMasi stifle a yawn. The LEGISLATURE writes the budget that neglects housing, education, et al – and Marie Parente did more to quash the immigration bill than Romney dared to dream.
<
p>
Real or imagined, the perception of ‘inside baseball’ and special favors remind people why a GOP governor will at least keep a nominal foot on the brake, and delay our skid to the Handbasket Turn In Station.
I was only asking. I am curious. I haven’t given my opinion.
<
p>
Cult like righties see what they want to see, hear what they want to hear.
EB3, I don’t think Capital D’s comment makes a difference when you consider my response to that comment in the original post:
<
p>
[from my original post]
<
p>
The bill, as originally proposed, did not include a method for the state to recoup the money that Ruane chose not to pay into the system. As Capital D correctly cites, Anthony Sciaccia, the bill’s chief proponent, made such an amendment, but only after the measure came under fire. CapitalD is incorrect that Mr. Ruane “had originally paid in from Day 1.” This from State House New Service:
<
p>
<
p>
Both Reilly and Patrick weighed on the original measure before the amendment was added – Reilly around midday, Patrick in the afternoon. In fact, it appears that such leadership may have led to the Sciaccia amendment that is certainly more fair to taxpayers. Again, this from State House News Service:
<
p>
<
p>
The main thesis of my post is that voters will be judging the Democratic candidates, in no small part, on their ability to show independence from the Legislature. I believe Tom Reilly was right to oppose the original proposal to grant Mr. Ruane a special pension – right on the issue and on the politics. I am also glad that Mr. Patrick followed suit.
<
p>
Taxpayers will want this kind of vigilance from any Democrat who seeks to occupy the corner office. The bill is revenue nuetral due to the amendment. Tom Reilly was right to speak up, as was Patrick.
How many votes will it cost or gain each candidate?
For the bill?
Against the bill?
No opinion on the bill?
<
p>
Just askin’.
This is not revenue-neutral, because if everyone was allowed this choice the system would not work. This flouts actuarial science because a “do-over” is being allowed after the person has significant new information.
<
p>
My uncle just passed away. My aunt will not see any of his pension money because he opted for the plan that gave more money up front, zero to a surviving spouse. He found out he was terminally ill about two weeks after retiring and selecting this option.
<
p>
It sure sounds revenue-neutral and for him to pay back the extra amount he collected in exchange for switching to the other option now, right? Wrong — that destroys the whole system, which is actuarially-based. The option to pay your spouse more exists because a large percentage of people “lose” on the bet that they will outlast their spouse.
<
p>
The state is giving this guy a free pass, he is getting something that no other citizen can get. Wouldn’t we all like that kind of treatment?
“Insider pension deal” on one side.
<
p>
“Cancer” on the other.
<
p>
It’s a wash, politically.
I have a question for anyone.
If it is a wash politically, does anyone have an opinion as to what was the proper vote for each member of the House?
The vote was on the amended bill, which is supposedly revenue nuetral. Reilly and Patrick spoke up against the original bill, which was a special pension for Mr. Ruane financed by public money. The amendment came after their criticism, along with opposition within the Legislature.
Did Reilly agree with the final version? Did he make his feelings known? Should he?
It is regrettable that Mr. Ruane has cancer, but Mr. Ruane is not the only Massachusetts resident who has serious health concerns. It took the Legislature nearly two decades to revisit healthcare reform, but they bypass House rules when it comes to one of their own. (The measure was moved from committee to the floor without committee approval.) That is not only the perception, it is a fact.
<
p>
Bottom line: if this were me, you, or any other member of the general public, would the Legislature have acted with an equal amount of compassion? I don’t think so. But because it was one of their own, now they are motivated to make exceptions.
<
p>
As I mentioned before, each of the legislators could have passed the hat or engaged in private fundraising, but instead they are using public resources to help a friend. That is wrong and Reilly and Patrick were right to speak out.
From the Legislature.
<
p>
This is the big problem with Gabrieli’s campaign: Because he started late, he had to make deals with power brokers to get 15% of delegates. And what would Gabrieli have to offer?
<
p>
Letting the Legislature go crazy.
<
p>
He traded away his curiosity about where taxpayers’ money goes so he could get on the ballot.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t it unconstitutional to create a bill that is solely meant to apply to a singular person? Does the bill apply to anyone who meets Mr. Ruane’s circumstances? Then it wouldn’t be, but otherwise it is.
<
p>
As for the political caculations, I don’t think this is going to become a major issue. I just don’t see the public outcry because Gabs supports a bill that would help a guy with cancer, even if the bill in itself is wrong and sets a bad precident.
<
p>
Would I support it? No, but I just don’t see this becoming a real campaign issue. First, whose going to attack Gabrieli on it? Deval Patrick? Hardly. I don’t even think Reilly will (although, maybe I’m thinking too highly of him ROFL)… kicking a man with cancer just isn’t going to win anyone political points.
Just in passing:
<
p>
Deval’s objection was, I think, more to the process than to the result. As he said (as I paraphrase), he’s not going to begrudge anyone his/her pension, but the special process the legislature went through on behalf of this guy didn’t sit well.
You mean they used the laws and rules available?
“Notwithstanding any General or Special Law to the contrary….”
<
p>
And I’m sorry, Ryan, but the Cosntitution makes no mention of individual legislation or pension systems.
<
p>
HEY! Isn’t THAT how we got gay marriage?
Perhaps Ryan Adams is thinking of the ban on bills of attainder (and ex-post-facto laws) in the U.S. Constitution. (Does not seem to apply in this case, but maybe that’s what he was trying to remember.)
<
p>
I can’t parse the question about how “we got” gay marriage, or how it is like a special pension bill.
. . . It happens all the time, special interest legislation mostly slipped into the state budget or other larger bills that benefit only one person. Some do actually make sense – some are just benefits for the politically connected.
Each one of you will see what you want to see. One side will see compassion – another side sees favoritism. Yet another will see political expediency and another lack of leadership. What ever. You pick your battles.
<
p>
The average voter isn’t going to want to take bread away from a dying man or his surviving spouse. Remember the pension for the Lancaster jake who was actually a volunteer, and not entitled to death benefits?
<
p>
http://www.fallenbrothers.com/community/showthread.php?t=4829
<
p>
Funny, this was “do-over” but I didn’t see the rest of you leading a charge against that! Guess what? People get it. And coming from a “fire” family – let me tell you, when the city or state doesn’t help out – the brotherhood does. 🙂
<
p>
You can argue the techical merits or flaws on whether the amendment is actually revenue neutral to the last nickel or not…or you can pick a real issue. I don’t see this as a huge political gain or loss for anyone. The winner will understand that this election is about property tax relief. It is the Alpha and the Omega.
First of all, my grandfather was a firefighter and passed away from occupational health issues. The Legislature did fashion a bill specifically for him or my grandmother, break their own rules by bypassing the House committee, and grant him health benefits or pension for his widow. That fact, by the way, has ZERO influence on my opinion because my grandfather received what he was entitled to under the system. I would not expect the rules to be changed specifically for him.
<
p>
The Lancaster situation is very different. There, you are dealing with a volunteer firefighter who died in the course of public service. If that community or the Commonwealth want to honor his ultimate sacrafice, so be it. I would personally support such a measure.
<
p>
Mr. Ruane’s illness, though tragic, is not the result of the same circumstances. In fact, the only reason why there is even a discussion of conferring these special benefits upon him is because of who he knows rather than what he deserves.
<
p>
You are correct: people do get it. They understand the difference between awarding a man struck down in the course of dangerous and important volunteer duties and what amounts to a special favor for the politically connected. More importantly, they will want a Governor who understands and appreciates that distinction when entrusted with their money.
You are fond of do-overs for people who “deserve” them, but not for other “non-deserving” terminally ill people? Volunteer firefighters count but other volunteers do not? Does any kind of volunteering count or only some volunteering count, as long as it’s dangerous? What does Mr. Ruane have to do to be deemed “deserving?” What if he volunteered for something and was found to have incurred his disease in the line of that volunteering? Does that count? And who gets to decide who is deserving? You? Do you know anything about this man beyond what you read in the paper? Or should it be by vote of the Legislature?
<
p>
Look – this happens all the time. Read the damn state house agenda on their website. More often than not, it’s a community looking to put some poor soul on their pension system. Most of the time, it’s not really who you know. It’s how people care for other people when they’re down, particularly those who work at the community or state level. Very few are getting rich on those jobs and the only thing they have is the pension.
<
p>
By the way, if your grandfather was entitled to those benefits, by did the Legislature break the rules and why did it need a vote by the legislature anyway? Typically, a firefighter gets those benefits without any of that. Once it’s line of duty, the city or town covers the death/pension benefits. I’m not quibbling on this…just questioning.
<
p>
I think it’s interesting that you slide right down the slippery slope, picking up speed and debris without acknowledging that what you’re doing.
<
p>
CentristDem, no matter how hard you try, you are still comparing apples to oranges. The Lancaster firefighter NEVER had an opportunity to receive a pension, unlike Mr. Ruane who chose not to participate in the system and to contribute NO money during his lengthy public career.
<
p>
Volunteer firefighters do not receive the same benefits as professional firefighters, nor do they even have the opportunity to be part of a pension system as Mr. Ruane did. There was no “do-over” for the firefighter because it was never possible for the outset. He died in the service of his neighbors and if they want to reward that sacrafice posthumously, I’m OK with that.
<
p>
The Lancaster firefighter was rewarded because he was struck down in the course of a duty for which he was never protected by a pension. Mr. Ruane served, did not participate in the system by his own choice, and now his friends want to re-write the rules for him.
<
p>
It’s all about choice.
He could have chosen to be a firefighter in a community with a pension system, right? Perhaps in a town with a professional firefighting department with proper training and personnel? It’s all about choice? But then, it’s not really about choice. It’s about circumstances that call for people to go above and beyond the rules to make life better for people.
<
p>
Listen, I was sick when Lancaster didn’t vote to give that poor man death benefits. God knows, he deserved them and I was thrilled when the state stepped in. Now cities and towns can’t get away on the cheap any more. It was the right thing to do.
<
p>
The only thing I’m pointing out is that your thinking isn’t consistent. Rules are bent all the time because people are human and circumstances call for it. Your candidate is a poster child for that sort of thing.
<
p>
And you never did respond to my question about your grandfather’s circumstances.
Not for your own personal gain, but because you actually knew you were making a huge difference in someone’s life? A difference with little effort on your part. Perhaps some sacrifice. But when you get right down to it, NOBODY is being hurt? Have you ever had that opportunity?
<
p>
Anybody ever stick their neck out for a friend? Or a friend of a friend?
<
p>
Anyone ever have the opportunity do the right thing?
<
p>
Rep. Jay Kaufman, come on down!!!!!!
Of course anybody would wan to make an exception for their friend or family member. But that doesn’t mean that they should. The taxpayers don’t have access to the General Fund to “bend the rules” for someone they know. We entrust the General Fund to the Legislature, with emphasis on “trust.” So, would I do everything possible for a friend and family member in need? You bet. Would I do it with your money? Absolutely not.
<
p>
EB3, you can do better than this. Come on now!
But Maverick….don’t you recall the death benefits that were create for the Lancaster firefighter? Here’s a precedent. He was a volunteer firefighter who died in the line of duty, and the legislature created a death benefit for his family. So…did you lead the charge against this? Would you?
But CentristDem, I address your very point above and point out the very real, very important, and very relevant distinction between the Lancaster situation and this one.
<
p>
Apples and oranges, my friend.
Government is not math. There is no truth.
As I have said throughout this discussion, the Legislature could do what so many of us who populate work places throughout Massachusetts do when something happens to a family member, friend, or colleague (but lack access to the taxpayer’s General Fund): they could pass the hat or leverage their position to privately raise the money.
<
p>
According to this Political Intelligence post, Tom Reilly agrees with that notion:
<
p>
<
p>
Every other candidate in this race could do it with the money in their couch cushions. Let’s see them step up.
Right.
<
p>
If if it wasn’t about “who you know,” then:
<
p>
Bernie Law would be in jail instead of Rome.
<
p>
The Big Dig Managers would be in jail, and we would have gotten back more than pathetic change after his investigation.
<
p>
Maverick, what is it with Mr. Reilly? The Unabomber and the Enron boys went to trial faster than some of the indicted in Massachusetts. I know of a public official who was indicted more than two years ago on receiving stolen public property…and he still hasn’t gone to trial.
<
p>
This is why your claims fall flat. For Reilly, it really is about who you know. He just didn’t know Mr. Ruane well enough.
1. There was no law under which to prosecute Cardinal Law.
<
p>
2. Tom Reilly stepped up and assumed control of the Big Dig cost recovery even thiough it was a political hot potato that nobody else wanted to touch.
<
p>
3. Who is this “public official” and who is he being prosecuted by and for what? Maybe it is a federal prosecution on a violation of federal law. I have no idea becuse your accusation is so vague.
What does he say to the next guy?
Legislature doesn’t have that problem now.
you say “no” to the next guy who also did not pay into the pension system throughout his career even though he was given an opportunity to do so.
But then why doesn’t tom start a $1,000.00 club for him?
The TV outlets, the press and the talk shows gave Reilly a boost in this story as the defender of the public. Patrick posted a respectable neutral for being the second critic of the bunch, but Gabrielli’s weak girlyman response to another symbolic backroom scam by the legislature cannot be overcome with money. This move and the $15 million statement on campaign limits are hints of a lack of good political judgement by the Gabrielli camp.
<
p>
Reilly stood up immediately to denounce the excesses of the legislature. This is simply another notch in his belt to help him with the independents who do not trust the legislature and support his position on the rollback. Lets see if the story has more staying power because the longer it is out there the more it will help Reilly and Patrick and hurt Gabrielli.
I happen to have a personal familiarity with both Mike Ruane and this pension boondoggle. Ruane was (and presumably remains short of a death bed conversion) a fiscal and social conservative who voted with the most hard line right wingers in the Massachusetts legislature when it came time for any funding for organizations or programs that did not meet his fiscal and social conservative criteria. Ruane was awful on issues such as funding of social programs, assisting the needy, and anything that smacked of “liberalism.” He was intolerant of gays and lesbians, immigrants from Spanish speaking countries, and just about anyone who wasn’t white and Christian. However, now that he is the needy one, now that he is the “victim,” government funding appears to be the solution. The utter hypocrisy of this guy seeking a pension when he had ample opportunity to pay into the system, like every other state and municipal employee must do, is mind boggling. Also, let’s not forget one conveniently overlooked fact, RUNANE IS ALREADY RECEIVING A DISBILITY PENSION, through the city of Salem. This pension he seeks is pension number 2. It may seem heartless, but Mike Ruane was a heartless bastard when he was a state representative, and, like other conservative hypocrites, he should be treated the same as he has treated others. No special breaks, no special government “handouts,” no state rep welfare.
I KNEW there had been a reason why he chose not to participate, and that was it – it might have jeopardized his disability pension!
Those are good reasons to be against it. But then Angelo Scarcia would tell me the many many good things Ruane did for people over the years. I’d be back on board.
Sorry, good post though.