I believe when he got elected to Congress, he wanted us to be honest with each other. I believe when he got elected to Congress, he wanted us to tell the truth. The truth is quite simple. Rail management and unions came to an agreement. It is a wonderful agreement. It is also bipartisan, Republicans and Democrats. It is a great plan: increase the benefits, reduce contributions to the fund, and have the taxpayers pay for it. What a system. Why would management oppose that? The taxpayers pay. Why would the beneficiaries oppose? They will get increased benefits, and they will contribute less. It is a wonderful plan, so why are we not all for it? It is just dishonest. It is blatantly dishonest. It is asking the taxpayers to pay for something that is, in fact, a private benefit.
Christopher Shays: “I believe when he got elected to Congress, he wanted us to be honest with each other. I believe when he got elected to…”
Editor's note · Context
Discussing a bipartisan agreement between rail management and unions during a congressional debate.
Share
More from Christopher Shays
What should be our primary concern, that chemical weapons were used by the Syrian Army, or that Syria has chemical weapons that could fall into the hands of radical elements sympathetic to al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations?
I would love to, if you wouldn't mind, just point out that what we have done in this legislation is that when the bill passes, it will take 2 years to be implemented so that as we vote out the legislation with whatever changes are in…
We sent a message years ago when we turned our back on the Shah of Iran, for whatever reason.
Sadly, I believe these strikes will have no serious military consequences on Assad because he can win this war without using chemical weapons.





