Tim "The Liar" Leavitt is Mayor of "Vancouver's Vancouver," (as opposed to America's Vancouver) so it's not surprising, considering a total lack of political awareness and integrity at the top that he would lead the opposition to a common sense motion by Jack Burkman to require city councilors to actually share in the cost of their dependent's health care.
The hypocrisy of it must have been very appealing to The Liar: force city government union employees to share in THEIR health care costs, but continue to exempt himself from doing the same thing. After all, anyone who would lie so pathologically about bridge tolls to get elected would have no problem engaging in this kind of rank hypocrisy when he, personally, would stand to benefit from such a vote, even at the expense of any small remaining public perception that a leftist like Leavitt would have any integrity left.In a 5 to 2 vote, they denied a proposal by Councilor Jack Burkman that council members pay 15 percent of their dependents’ health care premiums, bringing them into line with what nonunion employees pay, and what city officials asked — unsuccessfully — the city’s unionized workers to do this summer.
Who were the hypocrites, besides The Liar, who were so stupid... so out of touch... so moronic not to take this largely symbolic step?
Well, of course there was Jeanne "Gavel Down" Harris, who should have had the grace to resign after her humiliation a few short weeks ago... before she's slaughtered at the polls when next she comes up. No surprise here.
Pat Campbell, voting in the name of his own enlightened self-interests (He uses the benefit, and therefore actually would have been one of those paying this pittance towards their own health care) voted his own personal wallet; screw the people.
Larry Smith, whose dependents are likely covered under TRICARE since he is a retired Army officer, stunned me with his lack of political awareness... as did my own former hero on the Vancouver City Council, Jeannie Stewart.
I frequently blast unions, notably government employee unions, like those who supported pond scum Hollywood Tony Golik.
But when it comes to positioning themselves to demand union concessions (which of course is a process that should have begun 3 years ago) in Vancouver, how can these morons demand that which they themselves lacks the integrity to provide; namely requiring union members to do that which THEY, themselves, rejected?
These votes provide a great insight into how the minds of these people work. I expected better, because, particularly from Smith, leading by example needs to be more than a catch-phrase.
.
If you watch the video AGAIN, that vote was the way it was but the issue is going back to staff for more work and brought back up some time with-in the next few weeks.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are going to be some concessions as Jeanne Stewart wanted to have it come before the Salary & Review commission. To me that is fair & gets this out of the politics of it.
What do you think?
Didn't watch the video at all, I freely admit.
ReplyDeleteThis request, by Burkman, didn't need review. It didn't need discussion. Yes or no... up or down, those voting on this had an easy choice to make:
Exercise some leadership and set the example of "shared sacrifice;" or continue the double standard, requiring others to pay what they themselves will not pay.
I hold this particular truth to be self-evident. Issues can be "committed" to death. It's right, or it's wrong, and maintaining an obvious double standard over something so symbolically important just gives the unions (And I am by no means a union member or sympathizer) an unnecessary hammer to beat the hell out of our government leaders.
It doesn't NEED "more work." This could have been done NOW to send a message: "We ALL understand the concept of 'shared sacrifice.' Now, we're all involved."
They needed to man up. They didn't. And since there is not, to me, any reason to not do this... I can't imagine any circumstance that staff or anyone else could come up with that would justify this action.