State House Rep. Mike Kelly goes off the deep end — 3 Comments

  1. More comments:

    Jan. 11, 2007 from Phyllis Church, Gary Newman

    Phyllis likes the idea of cutting off benefits for dependents, á la John Coghill, to reduce liability of PERS/TERS. With all her accounting acumen over the years, surprising to have her not recognize that PERS/TERS has NOTHING to do with health benefits. Also, the minor point that throwing more folks into the ranks of the uninsured is simply not in society’s best interest. And, since these benefits are mostly negotiated in labor agreements, they would have to be bargained away. Finally, if you reduce benefits, you lose qualified employees, who find better benefits elsewhere. It ain’t gonna happen.

    Jan. 13, 2007 from Erica Dvorak

    Erica says it is reverse discrimination for the court to order same sex partner benefits when non-married opposite sex partners are denied benefits. Erica, the reason is that opposite sex partners have redress as they have the right to get married whereas we the people of the State of Alaska voted to deny that option to same sex couples. That is the legal basis for the Supreme Court’s ruling.

    Jan 14, 2007 – Don Callaghan and Gordon Depue

    In reading Depue’s letter, one might think he was being deliberately over the top to make a point. Sadly, he is entirely serious.

  2. I’ve thoroughly roasted Kelly in my upcoming editorial in The Ester Republic (at the printer now). Should be out on the newstands tonight and on the web in a week or so (haven’t got a current internet connection).

    Mike Kelly embarrassed himself badly, although I don’t think he knows it.

Warning: Module "imagick" is already loaded in Unknown on line 0