The Washington Post looks at the status of gay federal employees, noting that because of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) their partners are prohibited from receiving spousal health benefits that are increasingly common in the private sector.
One day DOMA will go the way of all pernicious things, but this is one more example of how government trails the private sector in all manner of innovations. In this case, it’s because of anti-gay Republicans who pushed for DOMA and complicit Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, who signed it and then bragged about having done so in his southern campaign ads. In other instances, innovation in the government sector is stymied by fealty to public sector unions and their hidebound rules. And innovation throughout the economy is curtailed by the government’s arcane legislation and voluminous regulation, and by the crony capitalism fueled by K Street lobbyists that misdirects capital for political payback.
Altogether, it’s why bigger government isn’t the answer to what ails America.
14 Comments for “Government Lags”
posted by BobN on
“government trails the private sector in all manner of innovations”
What planet do you live on? On Earth, more specifically in the U.S., the first anti-discrimination rules were adopted by local governments in gay-friendly cities and towns on the coasts. When the first corporations started adopting them, too, it was often a result of union support (sorry for springing the word “union” on you without warning… I know how irritating it can be to some on the right).
The idea that business led the fight is ludicrous, as you well know. The fact that most large corporations are now ahead of GOP-controlled government bodies isn’t a story about business leadership so much as it is about GOP foot-dragging and obstruction. Witness recent events in TN.
posted by Houndentenor on
I was in a Fortune 500 company when they added sexual orientation to the non-discrimination policy. They did it after being asked by an internal gay employees group. It cost the company nothing and as far management was concerned it wasn’t really a change in policy at all since they weren’t discriminating against gay people anyway. It was an easy sell. There were angry letters, but none from major clients (actually most of the letters were from people who had no business relationship with the company at all). There was no downside. You can’t threaten to take your business elsewhere if you weren’t doing any business there before! (Sorry for vagueness but I’m trying to disguise the company in question, though I suspect that this was typical of how things worked throughout the financial services sector.)
There was of course no representation from the religious right or threats of a challenger in the next primary if someone on the board voted not to discriminate against gay employees. The same cannot be said for politicians of both parties who are terrified of the religious right.
posted by Jorge on
I know nothing about Tennessee. Otherwise I agree with every word BobN said.
I’m no fan of big labor, but if there’s one thing unions known for, it’s for being welfare kings. Union workers get paid better, they have better hours, they have much more support in fighting workplace abuses, and they get good benefits. I pay ZERO for my health insurance. Even if the marriage law failed I could still get domestic partner benefits.
I’m not a fan of coalition politics, either, but this topic is swaying me a bit. Both the gay rights movement and the union movement are on the political left. The gay rights movement’s progressive alignment gives us some interesting allies. There’ll never be a progressive revolution but being able to make allies easily is always a plus.
posted by another steve on
Union workers get paid better, they have better hours, they have much more support in fighting workplace abuses, and they get good benefits. …
Yes, but when we’re talking about public sector unions, it’s the taxpayers that are funding these gold-plated benefits — taxpayers who typically don’t have traditional pensions, and whose employers expect them to pay at least some percentage of their health insurance. To expect Joe and Jill taxpayer to fund government worker pay and benefits that are far more generous than they’ll ever see (because it would drive their employers bankrupt, just as it’s driving governments bankrupt) is an outrage.
And aligning the fight for gay equality with public sector unions is going to backfire (not in Ohio this year, but yes, eventually the taxpayers will wake up).
posted by Jorge on
Yes, but when we’re talking about public sector unions, it’s the taxpayers that are funding these gold-plated benefits —
Well when those gold-plated benefits happen to include “spousal” (that is, domestic partner) benefits for gays before their time I am not going to complain.
posted by another steve on
I know government workers who retired after 20 years — in their mid-50s — with pensions paying 80% of their former salaries, and with supplemental “retiree” health benefits — after paying nothing for their health care while working (like you). Taxpayers barely scrapping by are funding this outrage. Glad you think this is just dandy.
posted by Houndentenor on
Wait.
1. This is what the employees and employers agreed to. At some point they probably agreed to smaller salary increases or other things in exchange for that.
2. No, I don’t think it’s right to change the terms of a contract without a negotiation. Yes, corporations have been screwing over retirees for years doing this as well. That was also wrong.
3. In NY Cuomo got big concessions from the unions without taking away their right to bargain. The same would have worked in Wisconsin and Ohio and other places. It’s the assholery of it that makes me hate Walker and Kasich. Well, I already hated Kasich. He was a partner at Lehman brothers. In a decent society that would disqualify someone from appearing in public much less becoming governor.
posted by BobN on
What kind of “government workers”? Navy seals?
posted by Jorge on
There’s something almost communist about hating on people for benefits they receive by virtue of decisions that were made 20 years ago.
Yes, the good old 55/20. I don’t even remember whether or not I’m subject to it in my contract. I think the thing they keep debating bringing back (which will never happen) is something about five yeras, but I could be wrong.
posted by JohnInCA on
… as a gay federal employee who can’t get spousal benefits for my partner, I understand the anger. Believe me, I do.
But really, so long as the politicians that promise to do something about “big government” also promise to do something about “the gays”, I’m not sure I can accept that “big government” is the problem. After all, if it were then so-called conservatives would be our allies, something they’ve demonstrated they refuse to be.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But really, so long as the politicians that promise to do something about “big government” also promise to do something about “the gays”, I’m not sure I can accept that “big government” is the problem. After all, if it were then so-called conservatives would be our allies, something they’ve demonstrated they refuse to be.
The relationship of anti-gay legislative initiatives is probably a mixed bag in terms of its big/small government.
For example, the proposal to strip federal courts of jurisdiction to hear and decide constitutional issues concerning marriage, sodomy and other cases involving “equal means equal” is arguably a small government proposal, since it would reduce the number of cases being decided by the judicial branch. On the other hand, DADT reinstatement is arguably a big government proposal, since it would increase the number of discharge investigations and proceedings within the military, with attendant budgetary and manpower implications. Legislation to ban discussion of LGBT issues in public schools is probably neutral on that score. We’d have to go through the increasingly long list of anti-gay measures being proposed at state and national level, and look at each, to do the analysis. I’m not prepared to do so.
What the anti-gay initiatives have in common, probably without exception, is that the legislation social engineering and, in most cases, intrusions upon liberty.
The left also does social engineering around moral/social issues — Truman’s order to desegregate the military and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 were examples massive social engineering — and the list is as long on the left as it has been on the right. Social engineering, it would seem, is as American as apple pie.
Conservatives claim to abhor social engineering (for example, Gingrich’s comment that “I don’t think right-wing social engineering is any more desirable than left-wing social engineering.”), but the reality is that social engineering comes from across the political spectrum.
Social engineering from left and right are often mirror images. Much fuss has been made about the California law to include gays and lesbians in history courses, less so about the Tennessee “don’t say gay” law, but both are cut of the same cloth.
I don’t agree with the idea that social engineering is always wrong. I think that it is inevitable. My view is that we should think carefully when social engineering — measure twice, cut once, so to speak.
posted by BobN on
but both are cut of the same cloth
One seeks to “engineer” society in a way that fulfills the stated goals of the society: equality before the law. The other seeks to deny the constitutional promise to a small minority.
Can’t say I’ll ever agree they are of the same cloth.
posted by JohnInCA on
I think I’ll go with a different belief: the question of big government/small government/just-right government is irrelevant.
For one thing, cause it doesn’t mean anything. It’s at best a philosophy or ideal that guides lawmakers and angry protestors, but it means nothing itself.
For another, as we’ve seen, people are more then happy to chuck their supposed ideals to the side when they want to be biggotted assholes instead.
So big government? Small government? However you feel about it, it’s not a deal (big or small or right-sized) to how you feel about LGBT issues.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In this case, it’s because of anti-gay Republicans who pushed for DOMA and complicit Democrats, such as Bill Clinton, who signed it and then bragged about having done so in his southern campaign ads.
True enough. But what strikes me, after watching the Family Leader’s Iowa “Thanksgiving Family Forum” the other day, is that the the American public’s views have evolved in the last fifteen years, the President has refused to defend DOMA’s constitutionality, and most Democratic politicians at the national level would vote to repeal DOMA. Hell, even Bob Barr has renounced DOMA. Not everyone has remained stuck in the mud over the last fifteen years.