Letter: Pension changes don't go far enough
New York's financial regulators advised health insurers statewide on Thursday, Dec. 11, 2014, to cover transgender treatment deemed to be medically necessary. The state capitol building in Albany is pictured here. Credit: Bloomberg News / Ron Antonelli
I read with interest "Senate GOP is blocking reform" [Editorial, March 19]. What's the point of a constitutional amendment depriving state legislators or officials of their pensions upon conviction for corruption if their spouses would still be entitled to their share of such a pension?
Whether or not the spouse was complicit in such corruption, to allow the spouse a share of the pension would be ludicrous and would defeat the purpose of such an amendment.
Stuart J. Silverman, Wantagh
