Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Equality Is Coming To Milwaukee County

Soon Milwaukee County should be offering health care benefits to domestic partners of eligible employees.

It's good to see that some of our elected officials are still forward thinking.

10 comments:

  1. So county employees like you getting only 93.31%

    ---

    Milwaukee County employee fringe benefit cost UPDATE

    Supervisor Rice cites data compiled by the office of the county’s Fiscal Benefits Manager, which issues the opinion, based on budget projections, that in 2010 the total cost of fringe benefits for county employees will represent 93.31% of wages paid by the county.

    ----

    It's just not enough for you, we now have to find a way to get even more from the taxpayers?

    True equality would be if your fringe benefits plan were to be brought in line with the national average of 29.3% of total wages.

    You poor poor union employees have it so hard...

    ReplyDelete
  2. A) I'm married, so it wouldn't affect me.

    B) IF you don't like those numbers, thank George Bush

    C) Where is your open letter to your employer to decrease his profit margin and/or your pay for the $27 per person per ride gouge?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I see you're still spouting the falsehood that GASB 45 was thought up and implemented by the Bush Administration.

    It was not. GASB is not a government entity and is not made up of government officials. Governments are not required by federal law to follow GASB standards, though many states require many local governments to do so. GASB guidelines are for financial reporting purposes and for policy makers to make decisions.

    http://www.seyfarth.com/dir_docs/news_item/e18937c8-fcbc-422d-9f86-9d3759075816_documentupload.pdf

    You are wrong about this to the point it severely damages your credibility. If you don't know what GASB is and believe in a conspiracy theory about it, why should you be taken seriously?

    I'm not sure how you can be opposed to governments reporting the cost of benefits they have promised. The taxpayers deserve to know how much your benefits cost and if they want to fund them.

    ReplyDelete
  4. if scott walker gets his way it will soon be 200% because there won,t be any county employees left.then he can pay for private contractors and the displaced workers.that,s genius.by then he,ll be gone and won,t give a ----.by the way if union county workers have it so great why don,t you run down to the courthouse and put your application in.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon 8:48, you didn't address the points I made in my post regarding GASB.

    -Anon 12:05

    ReplyDelete
  6. i was responding to patrick einstein.

    ReplyDelete
  7. @GASB Anonymous,

    You say they don't have to follow GASB, then you say they might, and then you question my credibility.

    But for the sake of argument, let's say you are correct on GASB, there are two things that you are still wrong about.

    One, it is undeniable that the Bush administration had an influence on it.

    Two, yes, openness in government is vital. Don't you want it to be accurate as well?

    ReplyDelete
  8. You misunderstood what I said.

    Local governments in some cases are required by state law to follow GASB rules. Local governments ARE required to follow GASB, including GASB 45, if they want a positive audit statement and positive ratings from bonding agencies. I'm sure you understand that not doing so results in negative financial consequences.

    Yes, of course these calculations should be accurate. These calculations are made by accounting and financial professionals, not politicians.

    Do you have evidence that any calculations used by the County are false?

    Considering you don't even know what you're talking about in relation to government accounting and that you'll believe in conspiracy theories, why should you be taken seriously?

    Maybe you should consider that math and reality don't lie and that your partisan and nakedly self-serving opinions should eventually take that fact into account.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Maybe you should consider that math and reality don't lie and that your partisan and nakedly self-serving opinions should eventually take that fact into account.

    No math does not lie, but it can be pretty easily manipulated. Using GASB the way they do does not accurately reflect the cost per employee.

    Especially if one considers that retirees now outnumber active workers.

    If people want to say that I cost the tax payers X amount of dollars, then I damn well better be getting paid that or they will be liars. Since I am not getting the benefits GASB indicates I am, that means the numbers are artificially inflated.

    In other words, higher more workers, and the cost per goes down. I would agree with that philosophy.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The problem with your argument is that the operating budget does not reflect GASB 45. The operating budget remains a pay-as-you-go system: expenses for fringe benefits include the County's required pension contribution, its debt service payment for POBs, and actual health care costs for active employees and retirees. It includes no funding for OPEB (GASB 45) expenses.

    OPEB is listed as a long-term liability in the CAFR, not a line item in the operating budget. It's as if you provided the outstanding P&I balance on your mortgage on your personal website, but didn't include that entire cost in your annual family budget.

    So if anything, the fringe rate is actually low.

    You have a point that it is untrue that you personally receive such high compensation, since a lot of those costs in your fringe rate go to other people, namely retirees.

    However, the number is basically accurate in that it reflects the fact that a large chunk of the County's budget goes to pay for your fringe benefits and the costs of all those retirees...money that cannot be spent on direct services for those who need it.

    Hiring more workers to lower the fringe rate would be about the worst idea in the world, because that new employee would require salary and active fringe costs this year, and require additional resources in the future as a retiree.

    So we are in the same situation: you are not right about GASB 45 as a tool of republicans, and I hope you'll eventually be man enough to admit it. You still don't appear to accept the reality that the County has significant fringe benefit costs and long-term liabilities, or the fact that money spent on those liabilities is money not spent on services, nor have I seen your grand plan for how everything can be made hunky-dory without cutting anything at all.

    Maybe you have a line to the money press at the Fed, or a significant supply of magic fairy dust on hand?

    ReplyDelete