Since he is for the “pay as you go” deal, has he offset this increase in federal government spending with tax increases or budget cuts elsewhere?
The government profits from all of the marriages that don’t take place as the same-sex marriages destroy conventional ones. Based on rhetoric I would expect thousands, if not millions, of divorces, and equal numbers of weddings avoided.
The benefits are extremely limited, they will not include health benefits for example. The cost can probably be offset by cancelling the Department of Labor, Division of Statistical Analysis, Western Regional Office’s weekly donut allowance.
Oh man, no more donuts for me.
OK, on a slightly more serious note, shouldn’t he now push for full legal recognition of gay marriage, at least for income tax purposes, so that the feds can benefit from the marriage penalty?
I’m not holding my breath. He has tossed us a bone . . . a damn small one at that.
I agree with you. This seems a very hollow gesture. I’m just wondering about the “pay as you go” that he has proposed because it seems that everything he says or does is half-assed nonsense and it disappoints me.
Will these benefits cause a tax increase on those making less than $250k?
Exactly what benefits are included, if health insurance is not? “Surviving spouse” on pensions? I’ve been trying to think through what I was eligible for when Barb was a federal civilian employee, and there was not a whole lot. Aside from health and survivorship items, the only thing I can think of is the right to drive on a military base one’s s[pise is working on to pick him/her up with the family car during periods of heightened security.
:rolleyes: “Civil rights, meh. If this causes a tax hike…”
I think it’s just relocation benefits, which is pretty fucking pathetic. It’s not even a bone, it’s a stale breadcrumb.
The ‘Pay as you Go’ did exclude discretionary spending, but as far as I can tell, benefits aren’t part of that. So yes, if he was serious about paygo, then he would need to come up with the money from elsewhere.
I suspect that he won’t, though. Putting a price tag on it would pretty much rile up both sides. As Captain Carrot alluded, Pro-SSM people would think it’s offensive to put a price tag on Civil Rights. And Anti-SSM people would have a hard number to talk about when they talk about the ‘harm’ SSM would do to our society.
According to Ben Stein, here’s what’s being offered:
ETA: The full text of the release follows Stein’s commentary on that webpage.
Pay-as-you-go was a policy for legislation passed by Congress. Since Obama is doing this through executive order, I don’t think it applies here.
It’s a small step, but it’s something he can do without Congressional approval, so it seems a decent first move. If this is the only thing he does vis-a-vis gay rights during his first term I’ll be disappointed, but I don’t think that’ll be the case.
When it comes to same-sex benefits, it’s not the size of the bone…
More like a partly-chewed apple core.
Ben SMITH, not Stein.
I was wondering why it didn’t sound as funny in my head as “Bueller?.. Bueller?”
If every gay federal employee turned heterosexual overnight and got married to someone of the opposite sex the next day, no one would be asking how the government was going offset the cost of all those extra spousal and family benefits. Fascinating how it’s only debate-worthy when gay families are handed a few extra goodies that don’t even come close to what the vast majority are already getting (a “partly-chewed apple core” is about it).
:smack: And I was looking right at the damn page when I composed that post. I guess my creeping senility has started to gallop.
If they don’t offer benefits for gay couples, a lot of those employees will leave and take jobs in other sectors where such benefits are offered. They’ll be replaced by new hires who are not only less experienced, but who will be eligible for benefits for their chronically ill spouses and large broods of children.
To engage this more seriously, I do see the legitimate frustration of civil rights advocates. I am beginning to think that Obama himself may not at the end of the day be all that “tolerant” of homosexuality. But I still have some faith in him to approach this in his first term.
There is no reason to do this other than as a little bit of flag-waving to signal his intent to continue working this issue. Clearly nobody was going to be assuaged by this alone and this administration is not dumb enough to think that. I think this is the political equivalent of interrupting the hold music with a person saying “Please stay on the line” - it’s just to reassure you that someone is out there thinking about this.