Tuesday, October 27, 2009

Joe Sanfelippo: Clueless and Classless

County Supervisor Joe Sanfelippo really needs to start begin catching up to reality.

First he issues a press release echoing Scott Walker's bigotry by stating that he too puts money before equality:
“At a time when the County is wrestling to close an $80 million dollar budget shortfall, which is projected to grow to $153 million within five years, and if these shortfalls are not offset by permanent cost saving measures, I find it incredibly irresponsible to propose new spending that could increase our operating expenses by nearly $4 million per year.

“Without the large scale wage and benefit concessions proposed in the County Executive’s 2010 Budget, the Board is faced with massive tax increases, large scale programmatic cuts, employee layoffs, or a mix of all three to balance the budget. Less than two weeks ago, the County Board passed a resolution mandating that most County employees take four unpaid furlough days between now and the end of the year. At that same meeting, we also voted to reject a labor contract with one of our largest unions because we cannot afford to continue to pay wages and benefits at the same levels we have in the past. These actions, combined with this vote from the Personnel Committee, send confusing messages to our employees. We’re telling them that we cannot afford to pay their wages and benefits, yet we are willing to spend $4 million a year providing health care to people who do not work for the County.

“At a time when both County workers and taxpayers are experiencing financial hardships, we should be concentrating our efforts on ways to reduce operating costs rather than looking for new ways to spend money that we do not have. That’s why I will vote against this resolution when it comes before the full Board on November 5th.”
Just like Walker, he wants to correct the errors of Walker's mismanagement on the backs of the citizens and workers of Milwaukee County.

Sanfelippo then continues lying to his constituents when he announces that he is going to hold three listening sessions, because:
“I always enjoy the opportunity to hear from my neighbors in the 17th District. Citizen participation is even more important this year, as the County faces an extremely difficult budget process for 2010,” Supervisor Sanfelippo said. “All residents are invited to stop by these town hall meetings for an open and honest discussion about the issues facing Milwaukee County government.”
The biggest problem with this is that all three town hall meetings are after the Board has gone through the votes on the amendments to the budget and sends it off for Walker to veto. If he was really interested in hearing what his constituents wanted, he would hold the sessions before he votes.

But then again, if he put his constituents first, he wouldn't be a Walker supporter.

41 comments:

  1. It is being prejudicial against same-sex couples.

    ReplyDelete
  2. How do you intend to fix the County's fiscal problems without addressing wages and benefits, which make up half the County's expenditure budget?

    You keep claiming your group will be unveiling a plan soon, but I have yet to see it.

    If providing these benefits will cost $4 million annually, what mix of expenditure cuts and revenue increases will provide the $4 million?

    I have a serious question for you capper: do you think the taxpayers have an obligation to pay whatever salary and benefits you see fit whether they like it or not?

    ReplyDelete
  3. arod-

    Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you really that clueless.

    Anony-

    We have addressed a number of things from the sales tax, to selling off the land that Froedtert and Children's Hospital sits on, to selling the City Campus which is being mothballed.

    The unions offered up and ratified a Tentative Agreement. Walker refused to come to the negotiating table. This is what he should have done if he did not think the sacrifices were enough. And now the matter will most likely be going in front of an arbitrator.
    The resulting tax increase is squarely on Walker's shoulders.

    It is kind of sad when Kathleen Falk proves to be a more responsible leader than a gubernatorial candidate.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Capper,

    I see you don't want to answer the question. You will find that it's not as easy to answer as you think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Why is it prejudicial?"

    I don't think that word (prejudicial) is the correct word to use. It's discriminatory to same sex couples...and anyone who thinks it's okay to discriminate against gay/lesbian people just because money is short are wrongheaded. Who should we discriminate against next to save some money??

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon,

    You are 100% correct that people shouldn't discriminate against others just because it saves a few bucks. So why is this discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Arod (FYI...that name/moniker is more lame than mine)...You don't feel gay/lesbian people are discriminated against in this country/state/county? Come on. You'll have to do better than that. How about you answer why not offering benefits to domestic partners isn't discrimination?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Anon,

    You didn't answer the question, but you're pretty good at shifting the burden of proof.

    Why do you believe that not providing health care benefits to the gay partners of County employees is discrimination? How is this any different than me obtaining health care coverage my roommate?

    ReplyDelete
  9. arod,

    Are you in a committed relationship with your roommate?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Capper,

    Sure. I'm in a committed relationship in that he pays me for rent.

    And you were saying?

    ReplyDelete
  11. That is not a commitment, that is a business relationship. That nullifies your argument.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Since when are business relationships not commitments?

    ReplyDelete
  13. Business relationships are contractual in nature, not committal.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Wow! And how are contractual relationships not commitments? The very nature of a contract requires a commitment to follow the contract. You are really painting yourself into a corner.

    I told you that this wouldn't be as easy to prove as you thought. You should be careful how you throw around the word "bigotry."

    ReplyDelete
  15. Not really, you're simply using circular logic.

    Business contracts are simply agreements to be followed. Commitments are deeper than that.

    Unless, of course, you have poor boundaries.

    ReplyDelete
  16. The problem you're having is trying to create a meaningful distinction between contracts and commitments. But there isn't one. A contract is a type of commitment and a commitment is a type of contract.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Well...then everyone should have their benefits taken away. Just think about all the money we will save by not giving benefits to all those unhappily married people who stay with each other not out of love but because it's financially convenient.

    Your agrument can be used in the same way against heteros...Arod. You are assuming the gay/lesbian employees would be dishonest when applying for domestic partner benefits...and I can't help but wonder why you would think that?? You do realize one way to fix this problem you are having with this issue is to stop discriminating against gays and lesbians and allow them to get legally married.

    ReplyDelete
  18. I'm not assuming that gay employees would be dishonest when applying for domestic partner benefits. That doesn't even make sense.

    I'm asking a legitimate question about what distinguishes a gay partnership from any other sort of friendship? And why should the county grant them benefits and not every other sort of friendship that exists?

    ReplyDelete
  19. You don't make sense. Of course you were implying those applying for domestic partner benefits would be dishonest and try to scam the system by applying for the benefits with their platonic friends or "roommates". That's just stupid.

    Like I said...this whole conversation wouldn't even be taking place if same-sex couples weren't discriminated against by not being allowed to marry legally in WI.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Anon,

    At the risk of being repetitive, that was not my point, so I apologize for confusing you.

    My point was this. How do you know it's discrimination not to provide health care benefits to the partners of gay individuals? Discrimination presumes deserved equality, which you have yet to demonstrate legally speaking.

    I compared gay partners to platonic friendships because they are closer legally speaking than marital relationships. Marriage is a legal contract recognized by the state. Gay partnerships need to be recognized by the state before they can receive health care benefits not readily available to the roommates of county workers.

    Do you understand now?

    ReplyDelete
  21. You didn't confuse me. I know what game your playing. You want to argue same-sex couples aren't being discriminated against on a local level because it is the state who is discriminating against them. Now...answer me this...what exactly did you accomplish with that argument beside giving us all a headache and making yourself look like someone who needs to be an ass by asking really stupid questions?

    ReplyDelete
  22. Listen, there is no reason to call the questions stupid just because you couldn't understand the point even after it was explained to you twice.

    Denying the gay partners of county workers health care benefits is not discrimination unless you can show that marital couples are on equal standing with gay lovers. If you cannot show this to be the case, then using emotive terminology like "bigotry" as capper did in his post is unsubstantiated.

    It's not my fault you're too obtuse to understand the problem.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Gee, Aaron, Mayor Barrett and the city can do it. Governor Doyle and the state can do it.

    Are you saying Walker is so incompetent that he can't run a program without having fraud?

    ReplyDelete
  24. Capper,


    Have you been following the discussion? Nobody is talking about fraud. I have no idea how you came to that conclusion.

    I want to know how the government can justify giving health care benefits to a non-marital relationship in one regard, but refuse to give benefits to other relationships like "roommates" or "siblings" or whatever.

    Is this stuff that hard to understand?

    ReplyDelete
  25. Apparently it is for you.

    Perhaps you have never experienced love, or have been in a serious relationship. But if you cannot understand the basic concept of love, or of making a commitment to another person that doesn't involve business, I guess you would also be unable to understand this.

    I almost feel sorry for you.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Capper,

    Save your pity, seriously.

    So, as a legislator, are you willing to stick your neck out there to craft a bill that sets health care benefits on the premise that someone loves another person? In other words, is the declaration that someone loves another person the single qualifier of why their committed relationship deserves health care benefits at the taxpayers' expense?

    If so, then there is a lot of people out there who are willing to declare their love for their roommates for a neat little health care package.

    Do you see where I'm coming from here? It's nice to thump our chests and fight for the cause of human equality, but it's not so easy drawing lines in the right places as to who gets what and why.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Those are excellent questions. I'm sure that the resolution that the County Board will be considering, to study just those things, will be money well spent.

    Why do you and Sanfelippo keep presenting this as the actual resolution to provide this benefit, when it is only a resolution calling for it to be studied?

    ReplyDelete
  28. Capper,

    Because you know as well as I do that the study is a preparation for the implementation - especially if we're paying for it.

    Again, why not study to see if we can extend health care insurance to the roommates of county workers as well? Shoot, then you can invite people to live with you so they can get health care insurance, Chris. Then your conscience would be clean.

    ReplyDelete
  29. It is a study to see if it can be done. Will it lead to more? That depends on the results of the study, now doesn't it.

    Again, why can't you understand the idea of a commitment, relationships and love? Your concerns about roommates to the question. The question is simply: Is it feasible to offer health care benefits to domestic partners?

    The other side of the coin is: Is it correct to offer health care benefits to spouses and children?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Oh geez...had I know I was talking to Aaron...I wouldn't have even bothered.

    What's up with the two different names/monikers....?

    capper...when it was legal to prevent women from voting was that discrimination???

    ReplyDelete
  31. Of course preventing women from voting or having equal rights is/was discrimination.

    ReplyDelete
  32. How could that be...if it was legal to prevent them to vote? It's only discrimination if there is a LAW saying so...well...at least according to Arod/Aaron.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Well, there was a time when the law said that only white men that owned land could vote. I wonder if arod would think that was discriminatory if he weren't allowed to vote either.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Exactly. Some people can't see the trees through the forest. They are so caught up in their religious bigotry...

    There is a really good video posted on Blogging Blue of a republican/WW2 veteran talking about equal rights for gays/lesbians. It is very touching...and spot on.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Feel free to create your own argument and argue amongst yourselves.

    ReplyDelete
  36. We aren't arguing...we are agreeing with each other. Duh.

    What is up with you using two different names?? Isn't that called "sockpuppeting"??

    ReplyDelete
  37. I was having problems sending email through my Microsoft Outlook. So I created a gmail account so I would have the capacity to email if I needed it. When I did that, it changed my login name. But it's not too difficult to figure out that Aaron, Arod, or Aaron Rodriguez are the same person.

    ReplyDelete
  38. This is one of the dumbest posts I've ever read. "Bigotry" and "racism"--the battle cries of an incompetent loser who has no meritorious points to make. Idiot.

    ReplyDelete