As you’ll recall, the legislature recently passed a bill entitling the widow of the late Rep. Michael Ruane to a state pension that she otherwise would not have received. Mr. Ruane was not eligible to participate in the state pension system when he was elected in 1975 (because of a previous municipal disability pension). In 1994, the legislature amended the pension law to allow him to participate if he wanted to, but he chose not to do so. And recently, when it became clear that he was near death, the legislature enacted a special bill that gives his widow a pension and would recover the amounts paid by placing a lien on the family’s home and selling it after Mrs. Ruane’s death. The lien was supposed to make the bill “revenue neutral” so that it couldn’t be said that the legislature was using tax money to help out the family of a friend.
Governor Romney returned the bill to the legislature with a proposed amendment by which, instead of the lien, the “revenue neutrality” device was more direct: each legislator, as well as the Gov and Lt. Gov, would contribute 0.5% of his or her salary to the pension fund each year as long as Mrs. Ruane is collecting the pension. According to Romney,
Without my proposed amendment, the bill would play favorites by creating a special benefit for the family of one former legislative colleague that is not available to other similarly situated persons. Through my amendment, the elected officials responsible for this legislation will be able to demonstrate compassion and at the same time bear all the costs associated with the bill.
Of course, what Romney is saying is untrue. If, for example, Democrats are elected Governor and Lt. Gov in November, they will be required by law to contribute a couple thousand dollars over four years to Mrs. Ruane’s pension, even though they had nothing to do with this legislation. Ditto for any legislator newly elected to Beacon Hill this fall.
But that’s a secondary point. What of the basic idea – asking elected officials to pay for this pension up front instead of recouping the costs down the road by selling the Ruane family’s home? Political stunt, or a genuine effort to find a fair and compassionate solution?
Stunt. Romney is right to say that the existing bill plays favorites, but the “salary” thing is just a silly poke in the eye to the legislature. The whole thing is a bad idea, and Romney should have just vetoed the bill. Of course everyone feels badly for Mrs. Ruane, who has just lost her husband, and who is apparently in a difficult financial situation. But, as Howie Carr points out, if she’s in a position to allow the state to place a lien on her home in exchange for a pension, why not just take out a reverse mortgage, or otherwise use the equity in her home to address her financial problems? If the answer is because she would have gotten a better deal from the special legislation than through a bank, that just takes us back to square one: the legislature doing special favors for one of its own.
This bill has been a bad idea from day one. It should remind us (if we needed reminding) why it’s not that hard to run against the legislature, and why that message is likely to resonate.
My sympathy is with Romney. (donning my asbestos vest…) As David points out, this bill is a blatant demonstration of a politician’s compassion for fellow politicians, and should never have come out of our Legislature. However, since it did, Romney has every right to say, “Why should I veto this, and open myself up to accusations of being heartless towards the poor widow? Instead, I’ll put it back with a twist that places the onus (financially, and politically) back on the legislature. Let them lie down in their own bed.”
<
p>
What is an acceptable response to being tossed a grenade from a wayward legislature? Answer: (see title)
I admit, I’m seeing this from a distance, but it seems to me that if a guy who IS running for governor (Reilly) has no trouble saying this is unfair and should be rejected, then why should a guy who’s NOT running for governor (Romney) be afraid to veto? Maybe the widow is a sympathetic figure, but no more so than thousands of other elderly indigents who don’t have powerful friends the legislature. Romney’s act looks to me more like a cheap stunt than a principled stand.
but with a different conclusion. I agree, it’s important to note that Romney is not running for re-election. A veto of this one would probably not affect his Presidential campaign in any way. But why should he veto? To save the widow’s feelings? Why hand the Democratic Legislature something they can use against his administration — and against his LG in her campaign for gov — when he could turn it against them? Politicians just don’t get into the game to be benevolent to their opposition.
<
p>
If one makes the argument that this is disrespectful to the widow … I again sympathize with Romney. He didn’t create this blatantly politicized situation. It originated with the Legislature, and now they can decide if they really sympathize with the widow.
you can show us how it’s done.
and everyone knows it. It’s a shame it’s had as much legs as it does. Even if it’s revenue neutral, it’s not resource neutral. My legislature — who gets paid by my taxes — is wasting their time on this legislation. They should be focusing on health care, education, transportation, energy, public safety, public spaces and parks, affordable housing and zoning, environmental issues, and employment opportunities, in no particular order but the order that they’re in.
<
p>
To waste time on 1-person legislation that a bank could set up is asinine and an embarassment.
I think it comes down to human nature. Probably the good side of human nature. But for Rep. Scaccia, a former marine who served in Vietnam, this bill would not have been filed. And Scaccia gave it the hard sell.
When it becomes so very personal like this, as inn life, it is usually the a-holes who put their reputation ahead of something really really really important to a friend.
<
p>
But the point I really want to make is the corpse is not yet cold. His widow is old and frail and in poor health. Yet, Romney sees no difference in this than in any other issue. âGet the Biggest BANG out of it!’. Or Eric or so smart. A simple veto would not do.
<
p>
Seeeee what I mean.
<
p>
If he has no respect for us, then why should we ever expect him to respect our recently dead and their widows? We of working class northeast backgrounds donât have the same inner thoughts when it comes to respecting and empathizing with the most personal of feelings. So it makes it easier for Romney and his ilk to disrespect us citizenry.
<
p>
Fuck You, Mitt. You arrogant, condescending, out of touch, spoiled, cold hearted, stepford like, bastard.
Well, shelf your fangs and save the ad hominen attacks for…never. I might well call you an arrogant, condescending, out of touch, spoiled, cold hearted, liberal whiner. But that would lead to nowhere. (more importantly, it wouldn’t be original since I pretty much copied you). 😉
<
p>
First, clarification: Under the bill, the state would put a lien on Ruane’s house in the amount of money HE WOULD HAVE PAID into the retirement system over the years had he elected pension coverage. Probably, the legislatures bill isn’t revenue neutral. It’s hard to figure the exact numbers, but it’s likely his widow will receive more money (pension + insurance) than the state will receive on its lien, when foreclosed.
<
p>
Second, all can agree, in the grand budget scheme, this is small money.
<
p>
Third, there’s a saying that ‘hard facts make bad law’. This is a sad situation; Mr. Ruane’s decision not to have elected into the system was stupid and probably selfish and it’s sad and cruel for his wife to pay the price. But, it’s just as wrong (but easy) for the Legislature to use other people’s money to remedy his poor financial planning.
<
p>
For the Legislature, it would have been far more selfless a gift to use their own pension. The Legislature should have considered it. Romney did consider it and put the buck right back to where it belonged.
<
p>
Political or not as Mr. Romney’s action was, the end justified the means.
In the sense that old Romney and his sidekick take no salaries (good for them!) which they can afford to do because they are members of the class of upper income earners (Healey has said she will take a salary if she is elected, which may explain why she is running). Thus, their 0.5% contribution will result in $0 for the Ruane fund. The lower class legislators who need their salaries would pay more. Very classy.
Romney’s letter does say that he and Healey would pay in what their contribution would be if they were taking their salaries – roughly $600 each per year.
Here is the Ruane bill. This is kind of like being allowed to buy life insurance just before you die. Its not clear to me that charging the amount of contributions plus “buyback interest” makes this revenue neutral.
My earlier point exactly. The legislature is correcting Ruane’s poor decision, at the expense of taxpayers.
<
p>
Largess with other people’s money.
There are plenty of people who did not put money into their companyâs retirement plans and I don’t see them getting a pension from the 401K plan that they didn’t contribute to or receiving any offers to pay back the money they should have been putting in so they can receive it. The whole point of putting money in a pension plan is so that it will grow over time with interest and dividends. Collecting the money that someone should have already contributed doesn’t include the interest and dividends that that money would have earned if they had contributed in the first place.
<
p>
As much as I dislike Romney, I kind of like his stunt. I don’t believe that the legislature is there to provide special treatment to themselves. As sad as this situation may be, this family has other options available to it and those should be used before asking us to pay. Now we the taxpayers have to wait for the entire family to die. You canât blame Romney for pointing out the ridiculous unfairness of this bill. Blame the legislature.
… but they’re right.
<
p>
It’s a sad thing that Michael Ruane mistakenly believed that he could not participate in the state pension program because he received disability pay from another job. And no, $33,000 may not be much money in the scheme of things (considering what certain retired legislative leaders get for their pensions). However, friendship should not be allowed to direct bad precedent. Unless the legislature is willing to create and fund a reverse mortgage program which everyone in the state can use, Mr. Scaccia should give Mrs. Ruane referrals to a good elder law attorney and a good financial planner.
<
p>
The Legislature routinely creates, and the Governor routinely signs, “sick banks” which allow public employees to contribute their excess sick and vacation days to a fellow state employee suffering from serious illness. Mrs. Ruane could similarly be helped by voluntary financial contributions from her late husband’s colleagues, which when combined with a reverse mortgage, should provide her with sufficient funds.
I agree with all of your points, MetroWest Dem, except for the assertion that “Michael Ruane mistakenly believed that he could not participate in the state pension program because he received disability pay from another job.” He actually had applied for the state pension when he was elected State Rep and was ruled ineligible by AG Belloti at the time.
<
p>
The big question mark should be did he know about the law enacted in 1994 that would have allowed him to pay into the system and collect and pension? Did he know about it and ignore it? Why? If he did not know about it, isn’t it somewhat troubling that the vice chair of Ways & Means and supposedly a top-notch budget guy and part of leadership missed a special bill enacted just for him?
It was enacted just for him – he was its only beneficiary. He simply chose not to participate.
You can choose to defer income, but even if you don’t choose, I think you get benefits with 10 years service plus over 65; or 20 years service and over 55.
<
p>
‘course there are 106 pension plans in the state (??) so I could be mistaken on the specifics of this plan.
<
p>
It looks like the Legislature is calling it revenue neutral, because it doesn’t directly cost tax dollars. The cost is coming out of the (underfunded) pension plan.
<
p>
The more I think about this, the more I think Romney did exactly the right thing: send it back and let the guys who voted for the GIFT bear the cost of the gift.
I am thrilled to see this post as we’ve been having this debate over on leftinlowell. There is no telling how long the Widow Ruane will live and even providing that there are no additional leins on the property when she finally does meet St. Peter..I rather fancied Romney’s play on the subject and I do see it as his way of poking the legislators right in the eye..er pocketbook..In Saturday’s Boston Globe, there was an itty bitty article pertaining to Romney’s veto of this bill..at the end of the article was the outrage expressed by one State Rep, Kevin Murphy (D-Lowell), declaring..”But we already had a way to fund it!”..Um Yeah..on the backs of the taxpayer. Not only would the Commonwealth be paying out this pension (“loan”), I do believe she’d be qualified to fall under the State’s Master Medical Plan (at a cost of $10,000 per year)
You know what..if these guys want to take care of the Widow Ruane, here are some options:
1) Pay for it out of their own pockets (oh, they don’t like that idea)
2) Assist her in finding legal reperesentation to better manage her finances..this shouldn’t be difficult as most of them are attorneys.
3) Reverse Mortgage
4) Commonhealth Insurance
This bill plays favorites and sets a really bad precedant. My goodness, this is the reason the voters of MA continue to elect the GOP into the corner office. Healy’s just sittin’ back, watching this freakshow play out.
I don’t beleive any part of this is about compassion. It’s called pandering, sweet & Simple.
This loan..er pension is a net loser for the taxpayer all around.
I cannot disagree with what anyone has said. There is no rational or objective reason why this bill should have pass. Bad policy. Bad precedent. I could go on. Other than what I have read here and from skimming the stories in the globe and herald I do not know anymore specifics (Based on experience, I suspect the facts are slightly more favorable to the Ruane cause than what’s been reported. REPEAT Based on experience, NOT on this matter).
<
p>
Good government is based on relationships, as sappy as that may sound. And I do not believe a matter could get more personal than this. Think about it.
Unfortunately or fortunately when you put 160 people in the same job in the same building and, for hours at times, in the same room, strong relationships will develop.
<
p>
Has there ever been a bill this personal? The legislator didn’t ask for this bill. Angelo Scaccia brought it. And fought hard for it. He is not known for champion legislation, and it was very personal to him.
<
p>
Many who voted against this bill are deathly afraid of bad press. (calling Jay Kaufman) They don’t care a lick about public policy or precedent.
I have to look at this honestly. To do that I have to consider how I act within groups. That whole group dynamic thing. (Not how Ernie acts in BMG group- ha ha ha) high school, college, employment etc. From that I tend to think I would vote for the bill, take the heat, and Iâll always be proud I voted for it. I also I tend to think I, like a lot of people, would have lost a little respect for some of those who voted against it.
<
p>
So, who do we want to listen to us when go to Beacon Hill to ask for help for the down trodden, the sick, the infirmed, the blind, the lepers, the shut-ins, the hunchbacked, those with consumption, the gonorrhea-ites.
Who Damn It? Jay Kaufman?
<
p>
Unfortunately, we are all human. I suggest this is a vote from which one can learn something about the humans in the legislature.