Obama to Offer Benefits to Gay Partners of Federal Employees

The decision comes as many in the gay community have voiced disappointment with the president, especially after the administration filed a legal brief defending the Defense of Marriage Act.

(Reporting from San Francisco and Los Angeles) - Faced with growing anger among gay and lesbian supporters, President Obama is expected tonight to extend healthcare and other benefits to the same-sex partners of federal employees.

His action is a significant advance for gay rights and comes days after the Obama administration sparked outrage by filing a legal brief defending the law forbidding federal recognition of same-sex marriage. Obama opposed the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act during his presidential campaign.

It was not immediately clear whether Obama's latest decision would mollify his critics. Some offered only grudging support Tuesday night after learning of the president's intentions. "This is a good thing for the small percentage of . . . people that work for the federal government, but it leaves out the vast majority of people who are in same-sex relationships," said Geoff Kors, head of Equality California, one of the state's largest gay rights groups.

As a candidate for president, Obama was a staunch supporter of gay and lesbian rights. He called for repealing the federal Defense of Marriage Act and also the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy, which forbids openly gay men and women from serving in the armed forces. He promised to help lead the fight.

Since taking office, however, Obama has disappointed many gay activists by not just keeping silent but, lately, by defending some of the policies he criticized. After months of grumbling, the anger exploded in public denunciations this week after the administration filed its legal brief in Orange County federal court.

"Anyway you cut it, it is a sickening document," David Mixner, a longtime gay rights advocate, wrote in a blog posting that echoed the sentiments expressed by many in the gay community. "What in the hell were they thinking?" In a statement the day of the filing, administration attorneys said Obama considered the marriage ban discriminatory and wanted it rescinded but was legally obligated to defend the law as long as it remained in force.

Mixner, one of several gay activists who withdrew support from a big Democratic fundraising bash next week, offered a measured response to Obama's planned announcement. "I am thrilled for the federal employees," he said. "I also will be especially thrilled when [the Defense of Marriage Act] is repealed."

Although there is some sympathy for the president's position -- "he has enormous stuff on his plate that requires a lot of political capital," said Steve Elmendorf, a gay Democratic strategist -- many think the concerns of gays and lesbians are once again being shunted to second- and third-tier status.

Ken Sherrill, a Hunter College political scientist and gay activist, recalled how the Clinton administration started with great hope but ended in disappointment when the president, for tactical reasons, retreated on gay rights. President Clinton approved both the marriage bill and the policy preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military.

"There's a fear that Obama will prove to be a heartbreaker as well," Sherrill said. A White House spokesman said Tuesday that the president was not retreating from his campaign promises. "The president remains fully committed to the . . . proposals he made," Adam Abrams said. "We have already begun work on many of these issues."

Tonight's Oval Office ceremony casts an especially bright light on the president's action and seemed intended to tamp down anger within the gay community. The extent of the benefits coverage and the cost to the government were not immediately available.

Obama has reached out in other ways. He named openly gay men to head the Export-Import Bank and the Office of Personnel Management. The State Department promised to give partners of gay and lesbian diplomats benefits such as diplomatic passports and language training. In April, gay parents were invited for the first time to bring their children to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll.

But critics say those gestures are meager beside the stack of grievances that started accumulating even before Obama took office. Many were angered when he picked pastor Rick Warren, a prominent opponent of same-sex marriage, to deliver the invocation at his inauguration. Then came the decision to discharge Army linguist Dan Choi after he declared in a cable television interview that he was gay.

The administration also intervened with the Supreme Court and opposed efforts to overturn the law forbidding gays from serving openly in the military. The justices sided with the president, declining to hear a constitutional challenge. White House officials say they want Congress to repeal the policy outright instead of having to intervene on a case-by-case basis.

Nothing, however, matches the outrage provoked by last week's court filing in Santa Ana supporting the Defense of Marriage Act. The fact that the brief was filed during Gay Pride Month, which Obama saluted with a formal proclamation, only compounded the sense of insult.

"You have some appointments that have been good and a proclamation," said Sherrill, who has written extensively on the history of the gay rights movement. "And then two tangible areas where the administration has done something wrongheaded and offensive. Doing nothing at all would have been a helluva lot better."

Obama's approach to gay issues seems guided by the unhappy experience of Clinton, who started his administration with an unsuccessful fight to open the military to gay and lesbian service members. Clinton lost the battle -- the result was "don't ask, don't tell," which allows gays to serve so long as they keep their sexual orientation a secret. The outcome angered many on both sides of the issue. Worse, Clinton squandered much of the goodwill that followed his election.

Now, however, many feel Obama may have learned the lesson too well. "Things have changed in the country," said Paul Begala, a top advisor during Clinton's early White House years. "I think some of the people in the White House are slow to apprehend that."

He cited gays in the military as a good example. When Clinton was pushing his overhaul policy, only 43% of Americans backed the change. Today, nearly 70% of Americans favor military service by openly gay men and women. Others noted that there are no openly gay men or women among Obama's top advisors, and suggested that may result in a certain political tone-deafness. In many ways, some said, it appears as though Washington is lagging the rest of the country in the debate over gay rights.

"They're talking about hate-crimes legislation and 'don't ask, don't tell' while people are getting married in Iowa," said Elmendorf, who spent years as a top aide on Capitol Hill. "It seems on this subject the politicians are a little bit behind where the American people are."

Source: http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/la-na-obamagays17-2009jun17,0,1003868.story?track=rss

Tags: Obama, Gay Pride Month, Bill Clinton, Defense of Marriage act, Same-Sex partners, Employee Benefits, Military, Gays in the military, Don’t ask don’t tell policy, Capitol Hill, HR, Human Capital,

Posted via email from Global Business News

The Great Deficit Scare Returns

Even liberals are getting antsy about debt and government spending. Stop worrying. The deficit hawks are wrong.

By Robert Reich

It's the kind of thing I expect to hear from deficit hawks and chicken littles -- from the self-described "fiscally responsible" right, from the scolds Ross Perot and Pete Peterson, from my former cabinet colleague Bob Rubin. But yesterday I was shown slides developed by the putatively liberal Center for American Progress intended to make the point. And today's front page story in the New York Times, by the eminent David Leonhardt, entitled "Sea of Red Ink: How It Spread From A Puddle," puts the issue right before our progressive noses, so to speak.

The Great Debt Scare is back.

Odd that it would return right now, when the economy is still mired in the worst depression since the Great one. After all, consumers are still deep in debt and incapable of buying. Unemployment continues to soar. Businesses still are not purchasing or investing, for lack of customers. Exports are still dead, because much of the global economy continues to shrink. So the purchaser of last resort -- the government -- has to create larger deficits if the economy is to get anywhere near full capacity, and start to grow again.

Odder still that the Debt Scare returns at the precise moment that bills are emerging from Congress on universal health care, which, by almost everyone's reckoning, will not increase the long-term debt one bit because universal health care has to be paid for in the budget. In fact, universal health care will reduce the deficit and cumulative debt -- especially if it includes a public option capable of negotiating lower costs from drug makers, doctors, and insurers, and thereby reducing the future costs of Medicare and Medicaid.

Even odder that the Debt Scare rears its frightening head just as the President's stimulus is moving into high gear with more spending on infrastructure. Every expert who has looked closely at the nation's crumbling infrastructure knows how badly it suffers from decades of deferred maintenance -- bridges collapsing, water pipes bursting, sewers backed up, highways impassable, public transit in disrepair. The stimulus, along with the President's long-term budget, also focus on the nation's schools, as well as America's capacity to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases. These public investments are as important to the nation's future as are private investments.

First, some background: Deficit and debt numbers mean nothing in and of themselves. They take on meaning only in relation to something else. And the most important something else, in terms of deciding whether the nation can afford such deficits or debts, is the size of the national economy.

Pay close attention, in particular, to the debt/GDP ratio. True, that ratio is heading in the wrong direction right now. It may reach 70 percent by the end of 2010. That's high, but it's not high compared to the 120 percent it was in 1946, after the ravages of Depression and war.

Over time, the basic way America has reduced the debt/GDP ratio is by growing the U.S. economy. GDP growth makes even large debts manageable. When the economy is cooking, more people have jobs and better wages. So they pay more taxes. And they require less unemployment assistance and other social insurance. That's why it's so important now, in the depths of depression, that government, as purchaser of last resort, steps in and runs large deficits. Without large deficits this year and next, and perhaps the year after, the economy doesn't have a prayer of getting back on a growth path, and the debt/GDP ratio could really get ugly.

That growth path, by the way, will be faster and stronger if the nation invests in our infrastructure, our schools, and our environment -- which is exactly what Obama aims to do. In this respect, national budgets are like family budgets. It's dumb for an indebted family to borrow more money to take a world cruise. But it's smart even for an indebted family to borrow money to send their kids to college. So too with the Obama budget. Public investments, just like family investments, build future wealth. They allow faster growth. They make the debt/GDP ratio even lower and more manageable over time.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying there's nothing to worry about when it comes to long-term deficit and debt projections. I'm just saying now's not the time to worry, and we ought to temper our worries by understanding the larger context.

Not every expert agrees that a deficit-driven stimulus is the best and fastest way to get the economy back on a growth track, or that public investments can speed growth. Conservative economists, Republicans, and many Wall Streeters are skeptical because they don't think government can do anything well. But look at the record of the last seventy-five years -- look at how the nation got out of the Great Depression, and consider the critical role public investments have played since then in speeding the nation's growth, investments such as the interstate highway system -- and you have ample evidence that the deficit hawks are wrong. They were wrong when they convinced Bill Clinton to chuck a large part of his investment agenda (the nation is now paying the price) and they're wrong now.

So, back to the mystery. Why are the ostensibly liberal Center for American Progress and New York Times participating in the Debt Scare right now? Is it possible that among the President's top economic advisors and top ranking members the Fed are people who agree more with conservative Republicans and Wall Streeters on this issue than with the President? Is it conceivable that they are quietly encouraging the Debt Scare even in traditionally liberal precincts, in order to reduce support in the Democratic base for what Obama wants to accomplish? Hmmm.

Source: http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2009/06/11/deficits/index.html?source=rss&aim=/opinion/feature

Tags: Robert Reich, Salon, Debt, Deficit, Economics, Obama, New York times, Center For American Progress, Republicans, Democrats, GDP, Wall Street, Global Economic News, Bill Clinton, Budgets,

Posted via email from Global Business News