The constitutional amendment to nationalize marriage law by forbidding states from recognizing same-sex matrimony (whether by judicial decree or legislative vote) won't win the necessary supermajority in the Senate this year. But the Republican leadership will likely bring it back before every election. That may be politically advantageous for now, at least in terms of keeping the GOP "base" of social conservatives well stoked. But as more Americans become more comfortable with spousal rights for gays, being on the side of reaction won't bode well for the party.
The conservative Washington Times reports that amendment supporters are courting "liberals," by which they mean African-American and Hispanic religious organizations typically on the left regarding wealth redistribution and big-government pork-barrel spending. That's called being "progressive" on the left. But it's in fact reactionary support for the dysfunctional status quo. Add in homophobia and you've got a very bad political mixture all round.
More. In the D.C. neighborhood of Shaw,
African-American parishioners
oppose allowing a gay bar to open near their Scripture
Cathedral. "Don't they understand that there is a day-care center
in the church?" asks one woman.
-- Stephen H. Miller
12 Comments for “An Emerging Anti-Gay-Marriage Coalition?”
posted by Randy R. on
Excuse me, but being a ‘liberal’ does NOT mean wealth redistribution or pork spending. As regards the pork spending, you need only look at today’s Republicans to see that they have spent more, and expanded government more, than any Democrat ever did. As for wealth redistribution, most liberals don’t want to take wealth away from the rich, but they do want the rich to pay for their fair share. Now, reasonable people can differ on what a ‘fair share’ means, but there is a difference.
Columnist George Will likes to take this tack, of describing liberals in the most unflattering terms. Perhaps Mr. Miller is copying this tack because he lacks originality in his arguments.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Excuse me, but being a ‘liberal’ does NOT mean wealth redistribution or pork spending. As regards the pork spending, you need only look at today’s Republicans to see that they have spent more, and expanded government more, than any Democrat ever did.
And of course, the Democrats have constantly complained that the Republicans’ spending and expansions of government were not enough. John Kerry’s “plan” was to roughly double the amount of spending and government size that the Bush administration was already doing.
As for wealth redistribution, most liberals don’t want to take wealth away from the rich, but they do want the rich to pay for their fair share.
Fine. Flatten the tax structure and Social Security so that everyone pays the same percent of income. Or, even better, switch to a consumption tax so that you only pay for what you use and spend. Also, remove the benefits caps on such things as Social Security so that you get out exactly what you pay in, instead of the current inflection points.
Anything else is taking wealth away unfairly to punish the rich for being successful.
posted by Tim on
“Anything else is taking wealth away unfairly to punish the rich for being successful.”
Oh yes, the rich are truly an oppressed and down-trodden group.
We just don’t have enough 100-million-dollars-a-year CEOs !
posted by DSH on
Frankly, the anti-gay marriage theme of the “new” Republicans, much like their “new” economics and warmongering, is now to be expected. The warmongering aspect fits the historical profile (Lincoln, Roosevelt) and the corporate welfare (Taft, Colridge) give the party its present license to go father than they have ever gone before, but most of us have awakened to their incoherence AND to the Democrats’ inability to respond. It’s nothing short of complete governmental shutdown without Newt to initiate it. The shadows of history have come back to haunt us, not as memories, but a vivid as life itself. We really are living this nightmare.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
Oh yes, the rich are truly an oppressed and down-trodden group.
We just don’t have enough 100-million-dollars-a-year CEOs !
Are you aware, Tim, that the average annual total direct compensation for a CEO, which includes their salary, bonuses, gains from exercising stock options, long-term incentive payouts, and the valuation of any restricted shares at grant — is 6.05 million dollars, according to the Wall Street Journal/Mercer HR Consulting 2005 CEO Compensation Survey, which surveys 350 major publicly-owned US corporations?
In short, go find me some of those “100-million-dollars-a-year CEOs”. I’d love to hear for what company they work.
In the meantime, let’s talk about the annual incomes of multimillionaires like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, and other liberals who, UNLIKE these CEOs, do not direct major companies or really “work” in any precise sense of the word.
Which is more fair, Tim; for CEOs who actually have jobs and direct companies that provide jobs for millions of people to make 6.05 million, most of it heavily-taxed, or for Democrats like John Kerry to sit back on their estimated $50 million in annual income, much of it tax free because it’s derived from investment instruments and not real companies, and demand that others be taxed to pay for their social programs when they themselves pay a bare $628k in taxes annually?
posted by kittynboi on
I’ve been saying since 2004 that this was going to happen.
posted by Northeast Libertarian on
“of course, the Democrats have constantly complained that the Republicans’ spending and expansions of government were not enough”
Whereas Libertarians recognize that, while both Democrats and Republicans are spendthrifts with the fiscal sanity of drunken sailors on a crack-cocaine binge, at least the Democrats are honest about their intentions.
Republicans continue to talk about “small government,” “minimal government” and “lower taxes” while growing federal employment and expenditures at a rate not seen in the history of this country.
Now, back on topic. Who is HONESTLY surprised that Democrats and Republicans can find common ground on anti-gay laws? Both gay Republicans and gay Democrats rush to defend their homophobic leadership. Bush pushes for an anti-gay amendment, and his reliable shills ala NDT scramble to “explain” how Bush is bad but so is Kerry, so just shut up! And Clinton/Dean/Kerry shills in the Democratic party scramble to “explain” how they cannot “go overboard” and support simple equality under the law because it undermines their candidacies in the red states.
Only Libertarians — in red and blue states alike, including Badnarick in Texas and Ed Thompson in Wisconsin — lead in the front lines against anti-gay bigotry. . . sans the duplicity, lies, spin and deceit of the Republicans and Democrats.
posted by raj on
I’m not sure where NDXXX got his US$6.05million compensation figure from. The Mercer study that he cited is at http://www.mercerhr.com/pressrelease/details.jhtml/dynamic/idContent/1216605 and the study shows that the median total direct compensation (TDC) to CEOs for 2005 was US$6.83million (2d to last table), not US$6.05million.
What is more interesting, though, is the last table, which compares TDC for CEOs vs. “exempt employees” (salaried employees) over a 10 year period 1996-2005. From 1996 to 2000, the year-to-year increase for salaried employees was fairly constant at about 4.2% (exception, 1996, where the increase was only 4%). On the other hand, the CEOs’ increases were significantly higher. In 2001, the CEOs experienced a slight decrease over the previous year, while the salaried employees did not. For 2002-2005, the salaried employees experienced fairly significant year-to-year reductions in their salary increases (3.8%, 3.6%, 3.4% and 3.6%), whereas the CEOs experienced fairly significant increases (10%, 7.2%, 14.5% and 7.1%).
NDXXX’s comment “Which is more fair, Tim; for CEOs who actually have jobs and direct companies that provide jobs for millions of people to make 6.05 million, most of it heavily-taxed….” makes no sense. The CEOs of the 350 companies that Mercer studied “directed” companies that had existed long before they (the CEOs) came along and probably did little of anything to affect their profitability–and when they did affect their profitability, they probably did so in a negative manner. Generally speaking, it is the salaried employees and the non-exempt employees (paid in hourly wages) that have the greatest effect on company revenue.
posted by North Dallas Thirty on
The answer is the Wall Street Journal; I’m looking at the exact page, and it says (Monday, 10 April, page B7) and it clearly says $6,049,504. (shrug)C’est la guerre.
Second off, “exempt” is not synonymous with “salaried”. “Exempt” and “nonexempt” refers to requirement for overtime payment under the Fair Labor Standards Act; “nonexempt” employees must receive overtime pay for any hours worked over 40 in a week (modified by some states, like California, to have a daily limit on hours as well), while “exempt” employees may receive overtime pay, but are not required by law to receive it. “Salaried” and “hourly” refers to the manner in which the employee’s pay is aggregated, and do not necessarily imply exemption status; it is perfectly legitimate to have salaried nonexempt employees, for instance.
In regards to your second portion, the term “salary increases” is a misnomer; the table actually refers to “annual compensation” (aka total cash compensation), which includes salary AND bonus payments. When one considers both that CEO bonus payments are usually done out of structured plans that have payouts driven by metrics like corporate profits AND that the compensation mix for executives is usually much more heavily-weighted towards variable pay (i.e. bonuses) than base pay, the differences become far more comprehensible.
As to your final statement, that’s a bit like saying a captain isn’t responsible for a successful voyage, or an architect isn’t responsible for a successful building, because they didn’t do the actual work of building it. While it is true that a company needs good workers, at the same time, good leaders make for better workers. Your statement is in essence saying that good leadership has no payoff.
In that case, Raj, if you are a manager, why don’t you fire yourself and tell your department to give your salary to the workers, or take a pay cut and try to operate without leaders?
posted by raj on
North Dallas Thirty | April 21, 2006, 12:22pm |
The answer is the Wall Street Journal; I’m looking at the exact page, and it says (Monday, 10 April, page B7) and it clearly says $6,049,504. (shrug)C’est la guerre.
Shrug myself. The WSJ obviously can’t read the results of the study that they themselves commissioned from the Mercer people. No surprise. And, apparently, you can’t reconcile the figures, either. Again, no surprise.
Second off, “exempt” is not synonymous with “salaried”. “Exempt” and “nonexempt” refers to…
I know full well what “exempt” and “non-exempt” refers to. But you and I are not the only ones who might be reading this comment thread, and what I gave was a not-unreasonable short-hand description of the difference.
In regards to your second portion, the term “salary increases” is a misnomer; the table actually refers to “annual compensation” (aka total cash compensation), which includes salary AND bonus payments.
I did not say otherwise. Reread what I said, and recognize that “TDC” referred to “total direct compensation” (salary+bonus, according to the table). I said nothing about “salary increases,” I referred to changes in TDC–as did the Mercer table from the study that the WSJ supposedly commissioned.
When one considers both that CEO bonus payments are usually done out of structured plans that have payouts driven by metrics like corporate profits AND that the compensation mix for executives is usually much more heavily-weighted towards variable pay (i.e. bonuses) than base pay, the differences become far more comprehensible.
It is true that the a CEO’s TDC is weighted a little more heavily toward bonuses than salary (see the Mercer table “CEO pay mix,” but so what? All that suggests is that the management was able to get the directors to structure is so that the CEOs would be able to make out like bandits. Given the “intermarriage” among members of boards of directors of more than a few publicly-held companies, that would not be surprising.
And when you get into the “long-term incentives” column, it becomes even more obscure–and yes, I understand the difference between incentive stock options and restricted stock. I suspect–but cannot prove–that the reason for the move from ISOs to restricted stock is due largely from the embarrassment that companies had to go through in the late 1980s through the mid 19902 to reprice CEO’s ISOs because they had become worthless because the stock was worth less than the option price and, for a reason that is unknown, the company wanted to keep the CEO.
As to your final statement, your analogy to CEOs being architects or ships captains is laughable in the extreme. Architects are not able to build buildings on their own, and they rely on others to build them for them. Regardless of how elegant their designs might, if the others cannot build them to the specifications, the designs are worthless. And if the designs cannot be realized–which may occur for a number of reasons–the designs are worthless. A ship’s captain does not act on his own, and cannot ensure a successful voyage. Aside from the obvious example of the Titanic, the ship’s captain acts at the behest of the ship’s owner, and relies on the other crewmen–the pilot, the people who stoke the furnaces, the stevedores, etc., to ensure a successful voyage. And a CEO most certainly does not act on his own. He relies on others to provide designs of products and/or services that a company might provide, and on yet others to actually realize the designs, and on yet others to sell the products and services to prospective customers.
Sorry, the idea that a CEO should get the primary benefit for the profitability of a company is idiotic in the extreme. Particularly the 350 companies that the Mercer group studied.
posted by Eddie B. on
Sorry Steve, but one man’s silly “pork barrel-big government” project is another mans basic means of survival.
Many conservatives love to paint themselves as having all these great “new” ideas but in fact they seem to prefer an America circa 1929.
posted by Norht Dallas Thirty on
I did not say otherwise. Reread what I said, and recognize that “TDC” referred to “total direct compensation” (salary+bonus, according to the table). I said nothing about “salary increases,” I referred to changes in TDC–as did the Mercer table from the study that the WSJ supposedly commissioned.
Does it?
I quote you directly:
What is more interesting, though, is the last table, which compares TDC for CEOs vs. “exempt employees” (salaried employees) over a 10 year period 1996-2005.
Of course, if you read that last table, it clearly says “annual compensation”, not total direct compensation. Do you now deny that?
It is true that the a CEO’s TDC is weighted a little more heavily toward bonuses than salary (see the Mercer table “CEO pay mix,” but so what? All that suggests is that the management was able to get the directors to structure is so that the CEOs would be able to make out like bandits.
A LITTLE more heavily? The average pay mix for “regular” employees is almost the complete reverse of executives — heavily weighted towards base salary and away from bonus/incentive.
The reason is simple; employee decisions do not have nearly the capability to affect company profitability as do the decisions of the executives who oversee those employees.
Let’s try it, though, Raj. Why don’t you exhort your fellow employees to take their pay as 16% base salary and 84% variable compensation based on company performance? That means if you make $20/hr, you will receive $3.20/hr in base salary; the rest will be granted if the entire company hits its goals for the year.
And when you get into the “long-term incentives” column, it becomes even more obscure–and yes, I understand the difference between incentive stock options and restricted stock. I suspect–but cannot prove–that the reason for the move from ISOs to restricted stock is due largely from the embarrassment that companies had to go through in the late 1980s through the mid 19902 to reprice CEO’s ISOs because they had become worthless because the stock was worth less than the option price and, for a reason that is unknown, the company wanted to keep the CEO.
Actually, the answer is far more prosaic; prior to 2005, stock option grants were not counted as expenses, meaning they showed up only in footnotes on company financial statements. Starting in 2005, they were counted, meaning that they no longer offered any competitive advantage over restricted stock and were, in fact, ultimately more complicated on several levels than incentive plans using restricted stock.
Also, were you more familiar with business, you might be aware that broad-based — that is, to the entire employee population — option grants were the primary driver behind repricing and buybacks. Furthermore, one does not simply “reprice” an option grant; that is against securities law. One can exchange underwater options for new options, but in order to be legal, that must be done on an equivalency basis, and there are tax and legal implications involved that ensure the swap does not unduly benefit either party.
As to your final statement, your analogy to CEOs being architects or ships captains is laughable in the extreme. Architects are not able to build buildings on their own, and they rely on others to build them for them.
Then, since you think they’re worthless, get rid of architects and use workmen to build whatever they want. Get rid of ship’s captains and let the ship’s workers do whatever they want. Get rid of CEOs and let the workers decide to do whatever they want. Go ahead.