Molly to Paul: Nash has bottom line right in today's Dispatch article

From Molly Janczyk to Paul Boyer

May 30, 2006

Paul, The reason I thought he may have misquoted you is the article says you stated "Lawmakers had many opportunities to do what the Supreme Crt ordered them to do on school funding and they refused." It is as you said below...........The Supreme Crt ended it after (I put 4) rulings by courts to fix it. It doesn't matter to the reader just as mine misquotes don't either as the public doesn't realize the particulars and the bottom line is basically correct by Nash.

I realize this is staff talking but I am putting out rebuttals because usually when talk begins, it comes to fruition, I have found. It started in 3/02 when I first read something along the lines of 'spousal subsidies may be affecte' in a little blip in an STRS Newsletter. I began calling then and started heavy emailing in the fall of 2002. Early 2003 brought me to meetings, etc. And you know the rest. ELIM OF SPOUSAL SUBSIDIES. It has happened this way all along.

They may be trying now. But there ARE other options like increasing retirement ages to bring down the liability-iincrementally like Soc Sec. did. The retiree cannot keep bearing this burden. Some of us can continue to afford it. Many cannot and aren't going to Dr.'s or taking meds. They need to think differently and outside the retiree box for some relief.

My opinion and believe me, it won't matter, anyway. After 4 yrs of this, I know they are going to do it their way.