This is a daily call to action for GLBT issues. I wrote a longer explanation of our purpose here, but the goal is to simply keep Congress' minds on GLBT legislation while winning the hearts and minds of the American people one step at a time, through a constant stream of GLBT activism and education about our issues and discussion of why Americans should support us.
This will probably be the most cynical edition of GLBT Daily Action, since it will deal solely with the monetary costs of lacking equality for all. I think this is an important point to be made though, and it could perhaps sway some of those people who are not at all interested in other arguments.
First off, sorry for skipping yesterday's. I fell asleep and ended up staying that way for most of the day. Oops.
Now, on with this edition.
Money, it's a hit. Don't give me that do goody-good bullshit. - Pink Floyd
But I got to keep in mind
the bottom line
is the dollar sign
and the big bright lights... - Desaparecidos
If you want to skip ahead to find out how much we could save in taxes over ten years... it's about a billion dollars. It's stupid to talk about wasteful spending by the government and not acknowledge one of the best ways that the government can stop wasteful spending while making everyone more equal AND preserving tax BREAKS for people.
It's really win win.
Don't Ask, Don't Tell
In 2005, the Government Accountability Office found that the cost of discharging and replacing service members fired because of their sexual orientation during the policy’s first 10 years totaled at least $190.5 million. This amounts to roughly $20,000 per discharged service member.
Analysis of GAO’s methodology, however, shows that the $190 million figure may be wildly off the mark. A recent study by the Palm Center, a think tank at the University of California, Santa Barbara, found that GAO’s analysis total left out several important factors, such as the high cost of training officers—commissioned soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and Coast Guardsmen with several years of service experience—who were discharged due to their sexual orientation. When these costs were factored in, the cost to the American taxpayer jumped to $363.8 million—$173.3 million, or 91 percent, more than originally reported by GAO.
In just this single area, we could save $363.8 million dollars. This would also, frankly, stop impeding our military because it would end countless costly and time-consuming investigations under any DADT claim. They'd have more time and money to protect our country.
It seems like a no brainer, and even more of a no brainer if we frame it in terms of wasteful spending and bureaucracy gone bad. Should people want their 300 mil in taxes going to lengthy bureaucratic investigations on silly things? I don't think so.
Defense of Marriage Act
According to the Tax Policy Center, here are some ways in which it is more costly for gays with DOMA in place... gays are:
- Denied the Social Security survivor benefits that are made available to all married couples;
2. Heavily taxed on any retirement plan — 401(k) or IRA — they inherit from their partners, although married spouses can inherit these plans tax-free; and
3. Charged an estate tax on the inheritance of a home, even if it was jointly owned — a tax that would not apply to married spouses.
In addition to those, older same-sex couples are still making mortgage payments on their home. The TPC says that gays are at a higher risk of losing their homes (when a partner dies or from lack of money) because of their inability to be married in terms of federal law.
It goes on to mention:
In addition, surviving partners whose name does not appear on the title of the home the couple lived in are at risk of being forced out by the deceased partners' next of kin who may claim ownership — a risk no surviving spouse would face under any circumstances.
Gay, lesbian and bisexual seniors also are at significant risk of losing their home when an elderly partner enters a nursing home. This is because federal Medicaid law permits a married spouse to remain in the couple's home when a husband or wife enters a nursing home — but it does not grant unmarried couples the same right.
NPR has reported:
The cost of love isn't an abstract concept in my household: It's precisely $1,820 per year. That's the "gay tax" we shell out for me to be on my wife's health insurance plan, because her company must treat that benefit as additional taxable income.
Companies pay for their employees' health insurance with pretax money through a federal program, and same-sex marriage isn't federally recognized.
The NPR report mentions the sad fact that gays and lesbians are poorer than everyone else. They also note that if your partner dies, you can't get the nearly $2,000 survivor benefit, even if you need it to stay in your home.
And then there's this story which points to these facts:
- The man in this story pays $510 for a 90 day supply of five medicines, and he'd pay $165 less if he could get on his husband's policy.
- He'd pay $4,000 less a year premium-wise if he could get on his husband's (federal) policy.
A report says:
The study, "Federal Estate Tax Disadvantages for Same-Sex Couples," was released by the Williams Institute at the UCLA School of Law and comes only a week after the organization released a report finding that the majority of same-sex couples have less retirement income than married different-sex couples. The new report shows that same-sex couples at the top end of the socioeconomic scale and those with small businesses are also hurt by inequalities in the federal law. Both reports were conducted with funding from Merrill Lynch Global Wealth Management.
Other key findings of the report include:
- The estate tax penalty will cost same-sex couples $237 million in 2009 and nearly $620 million in 2011, if the exclusion limit falls back to $1 million.
- If current estate tax law is not changed, by 2011 the estate tax disadvantage will have cost same-sex couples more than $3.5 billion over the past decade.
- The loss to federal tax revenue of equalizing the treatment of same-sex couples would be less than one twentieth of one percent (.05%) of total federal government revenue.
Here's an excellent New York Times article on the cost of DOMA, concluding that:
Here is what we came up with. In our worst case, the couple’s lifetime cost of being gay was $467,562. But the number fell to $41,196 in the best case for a couple with significantly better health insurance, plus lower taxes and other costs.
(h/t Clarknt67)
Employment Non-Discrimination Act
Here's the ACLU's page on ENDA. After digging around for hours and struggling with the DOMA section of this diary, it turns out getting specific information for ENDA was more difficult.
We are talking about a lot of costs there too. Hiring costs money and then to fire someone when you realize they're gay costs money. If you are going to screen for gayness in your hirees that costs money. Working out the different federal and state laws, which aren't streamlined for gays, costs extra money. Potential lawsuits and the cost of more lawyers to protect against discrimination claims cost money as well. And many more things.
It also costs money for the GLBT people it hurts, even likely driving them into homelessness.
The Action part:
DOMA: CA Berkeley WV gave me some advice on who to persuade on repealing DOMA and how to go about it:
Judiciary, Jerry Nadler D-NY-08, has subcommittee in the House, had 108 co-sponsors, introduced Sept 2009
HR 3567 To repeal the Defense of Marriage Act and ensure respect for State regulation of marriage.
Conyers full House Judiciary is a co-sponsor but you have lost Wexler and Abecrombie.
Senate Judiciary here. I think the number of states that have made progress on this area of civil rights may figure in here. If the state recognizes other states marriage contracts that does not mean both senators do. States rights may be key.
ENDA: March 16th is ENDA Lobbying Day.
DADT: Call our senators and congressmen, tell them we want DADT Repeal in the Defense Authorization bill. We need it in that bill as an amendment. That is its best chance of passage.
Senate Democrats say that if legislation falters, they could include an amendment in the 2011 defense authorization to repeal the law, which would force the GOP to pull together 60 votes to remove it. In the meantime, Levin said he is exploring the possibility of instituting a "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" moratorium, to prevent more troops from being expelled under the policy, while the Pentagon conducts its review.
It will pass if it is placed in that bill. Please help me make this happen! We need to let them know that it will help national security concerns if we pass this repeal. Repeat: national. security. Add in a little wasteful spending as well.
And we need to let them know that we're not stupid, and we know the only way it will pass is if it is included in that bill.
So, write House Reps!
Write Senators!
Be nice but assertive.
The best way to get a message across, though, is to contact the House and the Senate's Judiciary Committees. They're the ones who deal with civil rights legislation. Again, whether or not specific members support or oppose us, contact them. The idea is to promote new arguments and new ways of thinking on these issues to help build consensus. Even sending a message to a vehemently antigay congressperson will help us plant these ideas into their subconscious. And it might make them think about the marriages they see happening in DC now.
House Judiciary
Senate Judiciary
And here's how to email or write the President:
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500
Please include your e-mail address
Phone Numbers
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
FAX: 202-456-2461
The ACLU tells you how to effectively write Letters to the Editor.
Since all politics is local, contact your state legislators and tell them what you think about these policies. They should hear from all of us whether they agree with us or not.
Try and get through to them by using the ridiculous monetary costs of this stuff.