I am an Ultra-Conservative, Alpha-Male, True Authentic Leader, Type "C" Personality, who is very active in my community; whether it is donating time, clothes or money for Project Concern or going to Common Council meetings and voicing my opinions. As a blogger, I intend to provide a different viewpoint "The way I see it!" on various world, national and local issues with a few helpful tips & tidbits sprinkled in.
My response to comments to County Supervisor Patricia Jursik???s response to my post was too long and too important to leave as a comment, so I have made it a new post. And yes it is another long post, but I think it is very worthwhile. To catch people up I have included Patricia Jursik???s comment to my original post, ???The People Have Spoken!???. Since the comments came in after I posted a new article and people may not have gone back to read comments on older posts it could have been missed.
I am sorry for the mixing of persons and the shift between talking directly to her and the readers.
Randy: Thanks for following this story. The quote you attribute to me is one that is taken out of context. My full quote stated that there must be enabling legislation in order for this matter to come back to the county board. I am committed to property tax relief and would only support any further referendum if it provides this relief. I obtained the final numbers and your are incorrect; My number indicated that Cudahy voted Yes, 2940; No, 3240. I'd also like to point out that you failed to give some important data. While about 300 more Cudahy voters voted "NO" than yes, over 3,000 Cudahy residents that voted did NOT answer the referendum question at all. Finally, a Regional Transit Authority (one that includes Kenosha, Racine and Milwaukee, RTA) may totally co-opt the county board on this issue as they voted to include a .5% sales tax for transit. Hopefully they will also include the property tax relief by removing transit from our tax bills. It looks like the Gov. will be including the RTA proposal in his next budget bill. The Milwaukee referendum, if it ever sees the light of day, will likely change before I ever get the chance to tell my constituents whether I am supporting it or not. Patricia Jursik???
County Supervisor Patricia Jursik, thank you for responding. You are our elected official, one who must voice the concerns of your constituents! I am sorry I didn???t respond to you at the same time as you replied, but I was looking for information on the subject. I wanted to be as correct, consistent, accurate, honest and through as possible.
The facts and figures that I used, are what was posted by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel the day after the election and I looked on MJS online for a retraction/correction and didn???t see one. I also looked on the Milwaukee County Election Commission website and they do not list any numbers nor do I see any results on the City of Cudahy???s website.
I also included you in an email asking the Cudahy Clerk as to where the numbers can be obtained. When I was emailed the results, they were the same as the ones I posted. Spot on! The numbers you obtained were not the final numbers as you stated they were. They in fact are false!
Update ??? Cudahy results have been added on the city website at
I included Patricia Jursik in my CC???d email list while requesting the results from the Cudahy City Clerk.
While waiting for the results, I received an email from County Supervisor Patricia Jursik included here from my request for results:
???You might ask the city clerk; I got my numbers from the county election commission; I had to go to the office and physically obtain some. I look forward to your factual reporting. Pat Jursik???
Odd that if Mrs. Jursik would have looked in the address to whom it was sent to, she would have seen that I did ask the Cudahy City Clerk. Must have been an oversight on her part.
To which I replied, ???First off Mrs. Jursik I do not appreciate your tone nor the fact that your claim I was not dealing with facts. Here are the numbers provided by the Cudahy City Clerk. Yes 883 805 557 344 351 312 629 3881No 926 829 605 398 482 462 787 4489 Did you notice that they are the numbers I used? I have forwarded you the excel spreadsheet with the results. It would behoove you to do your homework! Look before you leap!
If we look at your (Yes, 2940; No, 3240) numbers they are wrong and I will be waiting for your apology. It is scary that you do not have a grasp on the facts. This oversight on your part puts into question other things.???
***I delayed posting this until Mrs. Jursik???s response to my last email arrived. It did not come, so I posted this without a response from her on that the numbers she held in high regard which in fact were false!***
You can also notice that each breakdown (not sure if they are polling places since there is more than the five districts but that is my guess) voted ???NO??? as the majority and at each place. Cudahy does NOT want the sales tax increase PERIOD!
If the county election commission where Mrs. Jursik received her numbers from is wrong, ???why??? should be the question we all should be asking! Are they trying to twist the truth when convenient, mislead on purpose to push an agenda? Are they trying to water down the results or is it just incompetence on behalf of the county election commission? Laziness or was the problem from Cudahy???s end? Either way it doesn???t inspire confidence all around in country government now does it?
While the numbers differ that Mrs. Jursik provided, the result doesn???t. I understand that you can wonder how those people that didn???t vote on the subject might have voted and one could say the same thing about those that did not vote in the first place and stayed home. This is called speculation and is not factual.
In all, 74.9 percent, or 9,592, of Cudahy's 12,805 registered voters cast a ballot Nov. 4. http://www.cudahynow.com/watch/?watch=28&date=11/4/2008&id=48263
I also would like to point out that while she may have felt that I failed to point out ???how many didn???t vote on that subject??? (which she most likely would have questioned the number on) didn???t vote on it, I also didn???t claim otherwise. NO disclaimer was made either in the MJS article! I do not possess ESP nor would like to assume something that is not a fact when it comes to the reason people skipped the question.
It is obvious that she is not happy with the results, but they are what they are! If they fell her way, it would be easy to vote ???yes.??? But they didn???t, the vote was ???NO??? from the Cudahy people. She is in a hard place, does she vote against her districts people???s wishes of ???NO??? and go along with the county or does she vote ???NO??? as the people have stated?
A smart person listens to advice. A wise person takes the advice.
At some point, one must end speculations and deal with the facts we know. One must surrender to the facts. Fact (we will use her wrong, invalided, misguided, numbers) Yes, 2940; No, 3240
Net result is ???NO!??? That is what the people that voted said. That is what the people she represents want her to say on their behalf. This is why we were asked the question in the first place!
I also listed the source to which her quote came from and a link to it as well. If I implied something that she felt I took out of context, I am sorry and that was not the intent, but I included all of what she said in the MJS article in that paragraph. If the MJS misquoted she can ask for a retraction from that party.
While the people still have spoken and even if by one vote, the outcome was ???NO??? that is the wish and will of the people. THAT also has not changed! ???NO??? was the word Cudahy people spoke with their votes! It could not be any clearer!
We cannot forget that South Milwaukee, St. Francis and Oak Creek all said ???NO??? and those are County Supervisor Patricia Jursik???s districts (In Oak Creek just two districts). The voices of her area DO NOT WANT THE SALES TAX INCREASE!
History teaches us that the sales tax switch-a-roo/scam failed to produce the result the claim of property tax savings in the past. Didn???t the .5% tax increase that County Executive Dave Schulz in 1991 gave us with the promise that it would bring property tax decrease not help? Yes, and in the end it didn???t deliver on the property tax savings! Not one dime!
"...Schulz proposed a 42% tax increase for 1990. An angry taxpayer mounted a recall drive against him but did not gather enough signatures on petitions to force an election. The County Board scaled back the property tax increase and delayed a proposed sales tax until 1991??????
???First, history shows that when the County Board enacted a 0.5 percent sales tax in 1991, the resolution stated that it was for ???property tax relief,??? but the property tax levy went up 55 percent from 1992 to 2002.???
The more tax money you give the government the more they spend.
I am a suburban voter who is seeing the bigger picture that raising taxes is not and never is the answer! The taxpayers don???t bleed green, they bleed red. We have reached the tipping point and the people pushed back with a loud ???NO???! I am taxpayer hear me roar ???NO???!
Taxes are the seed of greed and have been unwisely used. The taxpayers are not the answer everytime someone thinks we need more money. How about being fiscaly responsible with what we have already given!
The Milwaukee County sales tax advisory referendum asking for a tripling of the county sales tax to 1.5%. We cannot ignore the fact that sales taxes are no longer credited against federal income taxes. The same holds true for all those creative fees, which have been inflicted on us like garbage and such!
???The advisory referendum is being pushed by well-intentioned county leaders concerned with funding for transit, parks and emergency services.
Unfortunately, those good intentions cannot eliminate the harsh reality that, while this referendum can promise a $130 million tax hike that makes Milwaukee County a high sales tax island, it cannot promise much else.
No County Board can bind the hands of a future board with regard to how tax revenues are used. As such, there is nothing standing in the way of this new sales tax money simply becoming a county spending slush fund.???
Therefore, no matter what the promises are, without them spelled out, it will not happen. While I am happy to hear Mrs. Jursik state, ???I am committed to property tax relief and would only support any further referendum if it provides this relief??? how can we the taxpayers be assured of that?
Also, she said ???any further referendum???, does that mean this one or a different one? Are they going to try another one to get a more favorable result for them?
The language in the referendum was broad and vague at best. That might have been done as part of the design (now I am speculating). While I do not dispute that the sales tax money would start out for the parks, what guaranty do we have that it would not be raided at a local level like the Governor has done with state transportation funds? The RTA already wants to raid it before it is even passed. See how easy it would be of the money to be funneled elsewhere!
Why is the solution always spend, spend, spend?
We have all learned, if we'll admit it to ourselves, that lower tax rates increase revenue collections since they stimulate the economy. Let us keep more of what we earn, and we'll find ways to earn even more than we were before, and tax collections increase.
There can be no new taxes and there must be spending reductions instead.
By the way, the idea of reducing expenditures when income lags is something that just about everyone of us has had to do at one time or another.
I feel that her response is typical political double-speak. Classic politics of politicians.
Will she vocally oppose the Dem Governor and the RTA tax?
Is it OKAY to raise a sales tax at DOUBLE, TRIPLE the amount of the promised property tax relief? Again, the answer is ???NO??? much like what the voters in Cudahy said!
If it passes - We will be watching the next property tax levy and see if Mrs. Jursik makes the ???damn you people are stupid??? remark that ???we reduced taxes??? when the levy is still raised to just slightly below where is was BEFORE the sales tax was increased. Slight of hand! The devil is always in the details.
The (Tax) "Rate" means nothing, the (Tax) ???Levy" means everything.
It is not the percent or rates that matters but the levy! The levy is everything! We will not fall for the common trick because people are becoming empowered and informed!
As far as the RTA and the Governor, my article was not that. I could have speculated that the Governor will raise the state sales tax itself to make up for the budget shortfall, but again my article was not that.
On the changes that may be made to the use of the sales tax money, for if there are changes to it, those changes would no longer be valid or in line to which the referendum stated that the people voted on.
My article was on that there is nothing in the referendum that promises or guarantees that the sales tax increase will go to lowering property taxes and the results of the vote.
By her reply that ???The Milwaukee referendum, if it ever sees the light of day, will likely change before I ever get the chance to tell my constituents whether I am supporting it or not??? speaks volumes that she will not follow the will of the people. If her intent was to follow the people's will, she would not be on the fence weather or not she is supporting it, because she would know that she is NOT!
In the end, it would be her duty to follow the will of the people as it stands. To say ???NO??? to the sales tax increase! To stand up to her fellow Milwaukee County pals and say ???My constituents do not want this!???
On a side note, County Supervisor Patricia Jursik, when people want to clean, paint and volunteer to keep up with the Milwaukee County Parks in Cudahy they are told they cannot because those are county union jobs and only the county union workers can do them. We have plenty of people wanting to make the parks better, but because of bureaucracy the people who can and want to help are pushed away. Even members of the Patrick Cudahy Park Friends, who have the resources and donations, are told no. But their sales tax money would be just fine!
I am not trying to be mean or harsh, but ???WE??? the people need to stand up and make sure the people that represent us in government follow the will of the people. Some times that means ruffling feathers or heavy-handed talk to get them to listen!
Silence is complicity. Only by standing up for what's right and never letting down can we say we are doing our part.
If we don???t make phone calls or emails voicing our opinions, then, to them, this means everything is OKAY and going smoothly. I have said this before ???Character is doing the right thing when nobody is watching???!
I will end this with a few Ronald Reagan quotes that are true and apply.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.
Entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States.
Facts are stubborn things.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Governments tend not to solve problems, only to rearrange them.
It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
Man is not free unless government is limited.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
Republicans believe every day is the Fourth of July, but the democrats believe every day is April 15.
Status quo, you know, is Latin for 'the mess we're in'.
The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.
The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.
The taxpayer - that's someone who works for the federal government but doesn't have to take the civil service examination.
There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.
We might come closer to balancing the Budget if all of us lived closer to the Commandments and the Golden Rule.
When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.
Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.