-
Born-Alive Infants Butchered to Death — No News Here
April 11, 2013 | 11 comments
-
Refuting the Libertarian Argument on Marriage
March 28, 2013 | 2 comments
-
New, Young Faces of the Pro-Life Movement
February 20, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Friedman: Liberals Are ‘Pro-Life’ For Banning Soda
October 31, 2012 | 5 comments
-
Will Charlotte Taxpayers Be on the Hook For Democrats’ Party?
October 29, 2012 | 6 comments
The Spectacle Blog
Expanded benefits for the same-sex domestic partners of federal employees could top the Obama administration’s social agenda in 2010.
The health-care Christmastime debacle largely overshadowed the vote, but a Senate committee, chaired by Joe Lieberman, passed a bill Dec. 16 that would give federal employees’ same-sex domestic partners identical benefits as married spouses. A House committee approved a similar bill in November.
Championing the issue this year would be safer for Obama than scuttling the federal Defense of Marriage Act or pushing his abortion agenda. The furor over right-to-life protections in the health-care overhaul should be enough to convince the president that this is ground where angels dare not tread, particularly in an election year (and particularly with your approval numbers sinking into the political abyss).
And by signing same-sex domestic partner benefits into law, Obama would show his disgruntled base of social leftists that he’s willing to play ball — if only T-ball.
Still, the bills could be a tough sell — not for moral reasons, but fiscal ones. A Congressional Budget Office analysis (PDF download) from December found that the House version of the bill would increase direct and discretionary spending by nearly $900 million over the next nine years without having any direct impact on federal revenues.
A comparatively small number, to be sure, in an age when “trillion” has become a common part of the American lexicon. Even so, devoting additional perks to federal employees (as if an explosion in six-figure salaries during the recession weren’t enough) won’t sit well with constituents already angry at unthinkable deficits.
More fuel for the fire.
View all comments (24) | Leave a comment
More Blog Posts by David N. Bass
http://spectator.org/blog/2010/01/07/the-price-tag-of-your-domestic
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
The Spectacle Blog
The #FreeKate Narrative Melts Down: Lies Exposed in Florida Teen Sex Case
Robert Stacy McCain | 5.25.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
H/T to National Review Online
ADVERTISEMENT
Lullaby's, Legends and Lies| 1.7.10 @ 5:27PM
Oh great!! Let's give away more money, to more people, who don't deserve it (in this case Union Federal workers). We can afford it, can't we? We can just go to the Leprechaun well of money at the end of the friggin' rainbow, and just lower the bucket again, and pull up some more money (because that's where the money really comes from, don't you know?). And then we can solve everybody's grievances, and everything will be just perfect. Will this ever end?
Pingback| 1.7.10 @ 7:18PM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Price Tag of Your D links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
hmm_contrib| 1.7.10 @ 7:26PM
devoting additional perks to federal employees
So the benefits of marriage such as health care or survival benefits, from one spouse to another, from a parent to a child, are perks? Isn't this an issue of fundamental fairness - that gay people serving the government deserve equal treatment as married couples? Since conservatives won't let gay people marry, but claim they believe in equal rights, isn't this how such a balancing act is carried out? By extending marriage benefits to domestic partners?
Alternatively, if you'd rather just support marriage equality, then it wouldn't be an issue, would it?
Pingback| 1.7.10 @ 8:39PM
The American Spectator : AmSpecBlog : The Price Tag of Your … Federal Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mickeymat| 1.8.10 @ 7:04AM
So exactly how does one prove they have a "domestic partner"? Especially if they reside in states that do not have legal same sex marriage. So roommates who want cheap health insurance simply say they are same sex partners and wholla cheap health insurance on the taxpayers doll of course.
Indiana Alex| 1.8.10 @ 8:42AM
Many companies offer domestic partner benefits. They do require proof. I think they require that a part (half?) of ones paycheck is deposited into the partners account or some such thing.
This is where the equal protection arguement MAY have some merrit.
I see no issue with this. Republican's should not be anti-gay.
Anti militant homosexual is something that we and many gays can be together.
o97y | 3.9.10 @ 9:25PM
I have bookmark it!hope for your arctical more!