I often make the point that the Democratic nominee for Governor will be running as much, if not more, against the public’s perception of the Legislature as he will be running against Kerry Healey. One of the biggest obstacles that the Democrat will face is presenting a compelling case that he can stand up to the Democratic Legislature. Today, Tom Reilly again demonstrated why he is considered an independent voice on Beacon Hill.
In a classic example of legislative backroom manuevering to take care of “one of its own,” the House has expedited a bill that would grant a $44,000 pension to former State Representative Michael Ruane (D-Salem). Mr. Ruane is quite ill and clearly his former colleagues feel compassion for his situation. I feel sorry for Mr. Ruane and I can appreciate his friends’ concerns. However, Mr. Ruane has not paid one cent into the pension system, although he had an opportunity to do so. In fact, his only connection to the system is that he happened to have worked in a branch of government that now has the power to make a special exception just for him. This is exactly the kind of special favor that destroys public confidence in government and hurts our Democratic nominees for Governor. If Mr. Ruane’s colleagues are worried about him, they should pass the hat rather than treat the pension system as their own charity account.
Earlier today, Tom Reilly urged the legislature to reject the special pension deal with the following statement:
“While I understand the impulses of some in the Legislature to help a respected former colleague in a time of need, it is not right for them to alter the rules of the pension system after the fact to benefit one of their own. There are certainly other public employees with equally compelling stories who do not have access to such special treatment. As much as we all feel for former Representative Ruane, I would hope the Legislature would see beyond emotion and personal relationships and recognize the dangerous precedent this would set. Our pension system needs reform. But any changes should be done fairly and equitably for the benefit of all employees and retirees.”
This is the mark of a party leader and what we need from our candidates. It was the same thing when Tom Reilly called on Billy Bulger to resign in the wake of Bulger’s refusal to assist a federal inquiry into the whereabouts of his murderous brother Whitey. As a reward, Reilly was literally booed at the Democratic Convention. (What a proud moment for State Party Democrats, huh?) Well, at least Tom Reilly understands that the public actually cares about this stuff. They care alot. If you or I were sick, do you think the legislature would propose a special pension for us? Of course not.
Oftentimes, Tom Reilly’s success as an elected official has been confused with being an “insider.” There is a difference. Tom Reilly has received the endorsement of Speaker DiMasi and President Travaglini, but that still hasn’t prevented him from standing up for taxpayers in opposing this misguided proposal from the Legislature that will only feed into public cynicism about the way things are done on Beacon Hill. He has never been about “going along to get along.” His track record will be helpful.
UPDATE #1: After I wrote this, State House News Service reported that Deval Patrick followed suit and released a similar statement this afternoon. That is good. Chris Gabrieli should get on board too. Voters want a Governor who is in the game, not on the sidelines. The standard is especially high for Democrats.
UPDATE #2: Unbelievably and inexcusably, the House actually voted to create a special pension for Ruane. Again, I am sorry that he is ill – I truly am – but this is flatout wrong. If your grandmother, spouse, or brother was sick, would the House create a special $44,000 pension for that equally important person? Answer: no. Nor should they. That is not what the pension system is for. Apparently, they voted late enough yesterday that it escaped the deadlines for the Globe and Herald, but here is a AP newsbrief:
Pension voted for ailing legislator
House lawmakers approved a $44,000-a-year pension for ailing former state representative Michael Ruane late yesterday, even though the Salem Democrat never paid into the state retirement system. The 101-to-39 vote followed an emotional debate in the House, forcing lawmakers either to say no to a former colleague or leave themselves open to allegations of giving special treatment to a friend. (AP)
Let me be clear about one thing: lawmakers did not just leave themselves open to allegations of special treatment to a former colleague. They gave special treament to a former colleague.
This is what the Democratic candidates for Governor are up against in the minds of independent voters.
I am so tired of people including so called loyal Dems ganging up on “The Legislature”. These men and women work hard every day for their district and the concerns of their constituents. They and their supporters are ground troops that get the Democratic vote out each and every election.
<
p>
For a leading Democratic candidate for Governor to actually use fellow Democrats as campaign fodder is unbelievable. I voted for Reilly during the Convention, and he has just lost my support.
<
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 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 CapitalD correctly cites, Anthony Sciaccia, the bill’s chief proponent, made the 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>
(Emphasis added.)
<
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.
I happen to have a personal familiarity with both Mike Ruane and this pension boondoggle. Ruane was (and presumably remains so 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,” a government handout appears to be the solution not the problem. 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 to supplement the existing pension. 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’m sorry for his wife, but I’m not paying this jerk a penny.