As I wrote a few weeks ago, the County Board was considering a study to explore the possibility of extending employment benefits of County employees to their domestic partners.
Today, the entire Board approved the measure 13-6, which makes the County Executive’s threat to veto it a moot point since they’ll have the 13 votes needed to override him.
In favor: Supervisors Gerry Broderick, Clark, Coggs, DeBruin, Dimitrijevic, Holloway, Johnson, Jursik, Larson, Lipscomb, Thomas, Weishan and Peggy West.
Opposed: Supervisors Mark Borkowski, Cesarz, Mayo, Rice, Sanfelippo and Schmitt.
Supervisor Chris Larson has been the main champion of this proposal and had a great quote for the paper today about the study, “The time is always right to do what’s right“.
Exactly.
I live in the Washington Heights neighborhood of Milwaukee, WI with my wife Jen, our daughter Emerson, and sons Carter and Colton.
Whew! I thought Milwaukee County was in financial trouble and that people here were paying high taxes already. Obviously the board discover that we are all doing just fine and more benefits and goodies were in order. Yay.
Do we really need this? Really? This is exactly the type of behavior and the reasoning that led California to become the bankrupt liberal paradise that it is.
And all of this for only .78 per day! Dan, all we have to do is give up 1 cup of coffee per day. Oops, sorry, two, because we also have to pay to keep some of the county pools open. Oops,sorry again, a bit more than that because we have to keep the county fish hatchery open. Opps, sorry even again, because we also have to keep the county farm open. Opps, I’m running out of oops.
We have a County Farm?
Where are you getting $0.78 a day from? I’m sure you patted yourself on the back for such a clever comeback and all, but what is that number based off?
I made the reference several weeks ago about the approx. $0.66 a YEAR it would take for the average property tax owner to keep several pools open in Milwaukee County, but your number seems a bit off. Perhaps you’d like to explain it with some numbers?
As for the original question about providing benefits for domestic partnerships, I stand by it. I wish someone would come up with an articulated response about why they’re against it rather than throwing our verbal hand grenades.
Many other Gov. entities, and private corporations, have enacted benefits for domestic partners. When the City of Milwaukee did it a a whole 0.3% of those who could did so to the tune of several tens of thousands of dollars.
Think about it this way. When a County (or private sector employee in their own benefit plan) has a child, that’s another person who gets the benefits you’re all railing against.
What are you saying? That public employees shouldn’t have children because they’re added to the healthcare benefits of their parents and you “have to pay for that”?
Think your logic through and realize it goes beyond discrimination, but family values as well.
Ok, here goes. Why on earth would you try and add additional benefits to a budget that is already 80 million dollars in the hole? Could you folks have picked a worse time to try and squeeze a few extra dollars out of the taxpayer for something we have been living without for all these years? I rather doubt that any business is adding those benefits when they have a negative revenue stream… at least not any business that plans on keeping it’s doors open.
Doesn’t anyone on that board feel a fiscal responsibility to the taxpayers of this county?
Yes Family Guy, Milwaukee County runs a farm that is worked on by county correctional inmates. The produce that is harvested is then donated to local food pantries. The county could either donate a sum of money to local food pantries equal to the cost of the donated produce, or buy produce from local farmers and donate it directly to them. In either case, that cost would be less than what it costs the county to run the farm. Hmmm, the county saving some taxpayer money, what a concept!
Only in Milwaukee County could spending money on a needless farm be considered saving taxpayers money. It must be the smell of the rotting sewage on the lakefront… it addles our brains.
Try this. No farm. No equipment. No farming supplies. No expense. Leave the prisoners in the cells as punishment for committing crimes… might even need a few less overtime shifts to guard them then. Let food pantry donations come from voluntary charity rather than a forced donation from taxpayers.
See, that is savings. Add it to what we save from fish hatcheries, and what we save from free parking, and what we save from redundant social programs, and what we save from closing and selling off water parks and free heated pools, and all the other wasted pennies we can collect.
If I was flat broke, I would cut my expenses everywhere I could. Apparently, in Milwaukee County, the solution to being broke is to spend even more money and hope it all turns out ok.
I say that if they decide to go forward with this, or quite frankly if they don’t, that they require each county employee that is utilizing the healthcare option to pay an additional $100.00 a month if the county employees significant other has access to health insurance on their own. That proposal, along with getting and paying for what the average private sector employees receives. Do that and you may get by-in from me to support this proposal.
Hm, now there is a thought. Make people pay a portion of their own health care to cover the cost of new benefits. The unions could vote on that and decide for themselves if they want non-married people to get the same benefits as married ones at no additional cost to tax payers. Sounds very fair to me.
So you’re saying penalize people if their spouses employer offers health insurance. “Honey? Yeah. Since your employer offers insurance, something you have no control over, we have to pay more for MY plan even though we’re not using yours.” Perfect.
No one wins in a race to the bottom Sean.
Dan,
I’m glad you responded to my comment, because that is exactly what the private sector is moving to. I know for a fact that there are several companies in the area that are enacting that exact policy. I’m not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with the strategy, I’m just pointing out that what private industry is doing to cut costs in these hard economic times versus what government is doing are two completely different things.
These are the kind of tough decisions companies have to make to stay competitive and keep jobs in Milwaukee and around the country. To add another layer of cost to the already overtaxed citizens of Milwaukee and Wisconsin, without cutting something (be it benefits, parks, wages, etc) is abhorrent, especially when those that work in the private sector (most of us) have to tighten our belt that much more…..
Actually, when the economy does pick up, those companies aren’t going to be at an advantage when it comes to competing for employees. Saying that you will be penalized for having a working spouse/significant other, compared to those who have a non-employed partner, sounds like the type of “penalizing people for working hard” rhetoric that I’ve heard coming from the right…
You hardly need worry about companies competing for employees. The unemployment rate is predicted to rise, so companies will be able to reduce compensation and benefits, and still hire the cream of the crop. People are desperate for jobs. With the looming 1-2-3 knockout punch of the Cap and Tax bill, the omnibus health care debacle, and a now out of control deficit, we may see some very bad job reports next year. We can’t even get China to buy our bonds anymore… sad that PBO has to go to China with hat in hand on this trip to try and convince them to invest in the US. Paying a bit more for your health care is hardly going to be a competitive employment issue any time soon.
This isn’t the good old days anymore. Times are bad, and getting worse. We need to support new and innovative cost cutting methods rather than whine about them being unfair. Government needs to emulate the private sector in reducing costs if we want to turn things around.
Didn’t say when it was going to happen. But at some point it will. In the meantime, it’s another “tax” on those who work. Actually just those who have 2 partners working. Heck, that’s hardly anyone these days thanks to unemployment, right!
Jill, whether it is or it isn’t a good policy, it does cut costs for the company therefore allowing them to retain jobs, create new ones, or just keep there heads above water. You may not like that strategy, but when times are tough, and there are government policies on the horizon that are going to make things on businesses even tougher, you HAVE TO make these types of decisions. If, when things get better (hopefully), employees start leaving or not selecting those companies to work for, those same companies will scrap that policy and work towards a different one. It’s the difference between really trying to control costs (free market) and “saying” you’re trying to control costs (government).