LCR Up, HRC Down

It’s Log Cabin’s time, with the much bigger and dominant LGBT movement organizations (Human Rights Campaign, Victory Fund) having ensured they’ll be frozen out by the Trump administration.

Via the Washington Blade, Log Cabin emerges as lead LGBT group in Trump era:

In another sign of how the political landscape has changed in Washington, the gay GOP group Log Cabin Republicans appears to have emerged as the lead LGBT organization expected to have access to the administration of President Donald Trump.

With most of the longstanding national LGBT advocacy groups, including the Human Rights Campaign, strongly supporting or tilting toward Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton in the November election, many political observers expect them to have little if any access to the Trump White House and federal agencies that oversee LGBT-related issues.

HRC has joined with others on the left in declaring its implacable hostility toward the Trump administration, and did so before Trump had been sworn in. So it’s good to see Log Cabin going its own way.

I think this is smart, too:

In a break with nearly all other LGBT advocacy groups, Angelo said Log Cabin doesn’t support the Equality Act, the latest version of a federal LGBT non-discrimination bill pending in Congress. He said the group would soon push for a different version of an LGBT non-discrimination bill that would likely gain more support among GOP lawmakers in Congress.

The overly broad Equality Act is an assault on religious liberty rights, rolling back protections under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act that Democrats once supported.

[Added: The Equality Act revokes any protection which religious objectors might enjoy under the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I wrote about this last November, here, noting that “staunch opposition to religious exemptions and requiring that the existing Religious Freedom Restoration Act (signed by Bill Clinton) be excluded from applying to any such [LGBT anti-discrimination] measure—as the Human Rights Campaign and others are demanding—is not a strategy that seeks to accomplish anything except to maintain the political standoff so useful in fundraising appeals. A win-win compromise—LGBT legal protections with reasonable and traditional exemptions for religious belief, especially among small, independent service providers—would be in the best interest of everyone except for activists whose power and prestige is based on perpetuating the culture wars.” Jonathan Rauch has also addressed this, as noted here.]

The great irony of all this is that Trump would, quite possible, be amenable to signing a common sense LGBT workplace anti-discrimination bill, but HRC and the LGBT left will work tirelessly to ensure that such an outcome never happens.

More. Wall Street Journal columnist Daniel Henninger writes:

For scorched-earth Never Trumpers…the response to this complex challenge is simple: Resist everything. For everyone else, from Doubtful Trumpers to Hopeful Trumpers, more productive ways of engaging with this presidency are opening up.

The media’s mostly Manichaean political model—bad forces arrayed against forces for good—is largely useless. The more productive if difficult path forward will require willing participants to pull out pieces of the Trump agenda and support them, refine them or, when necessary, resist. Full engagement with the Trump presidency doesn’t mean simple assent or rote opposition. …

For those who want to spend four years quaking before Mr. Trump’s kaleidoscopic tweets, the future is predictable. For everyone else, the more familiar struggles of American governance have just begun.

Log Cabin seems to get this; the LGBT Democrats, not so much. From the Washington Blade article:

The HRC message said the group had created a new “defy” logo and encouraged supporters to “resist” action by Trump that would harm LGBT people or roll back LGBT supportive policies put in place by President Barack Obama.. …

The Gay and Lesbian Victory Fund…[which] also lobbies for presidential appointments of LGBT people, issued a strongly worded statement on the day following the election leaving no doubt about its opposition to Trump. “Today I am heartbroken that racist, xenophobic, sexist and transphobic demagoguery won last night’s presidential election,” said Aisha Moodie-Mills, the Victory Fund’s president and CEO.

Sure, those are voices that are going to be welcome in administration deliberations.

Furthermore. No one expects the Republican leadership to favor an LGBT anti-discrimination bill. But if the Democrats introduced a common-sense measure with religious exemptions and got behind it, enough Republicans are likely to join them to get to a majority, and I believe Trump might very well sign it. But that’s the last thing the Democrats, and their LGBT auxiliaries, would want to happen.

Final thought. According to their 2015 form 990 filings for tax year 2014 (the last ones you can view for free through online search), total annual revenue was:
LCR: $      289,950.
HRC: $37,406,706.

42 Comments for “LCR Up, HRC Down”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    As you observed in 2015 (see “Equality Act Is New Cause”, Stephen H. Miller, July 25, 2015), “The Equality Act seeks to amend the iconic Civil Rights Act 1964 to include sexual orientation and gender identity, in employment, housing, education, jury service(!) and public accommodations, with no religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages. It has zero chance of passing Congress, dominated by the GOP.”

    What was true then is true now. The Equality Act “has zero chance of passing Congress, dominated by the GOP”. Republicans in Congress will not put gays and lesbians on an equal footing other Americans because Republicans in Congress cannot do so, given the base.

    But you were wrong about one thing back then, Stephen. In the years since you wrote in 2015, it has become clear that “religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages” will not be enough to satisfy the base. In the years since then, the demands for the right to discriminate have grown significantly among the base, and now include public officials, something that was, until recently, an anathema even to you. We are in a new place now. The base will not tolerate any application of non-discrimination laws to gays and lesbians without a broad carve-out permitting special, targeted, government-sanctioned discrimination against gays and lesbians.

    Think about what you wrote about the Equality Act in 2015. What do “religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages” have to do with employment non-discrimination? What do “religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages” have to do with motels and hotels?” What do “religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages” have to do with access to public facilities?” What do “religious exemptions for businesses such as wedding caterers and photographers to pass on gigs involving gay marriages” have to do with theaters, shopping malls, restaurants?” And so on.

    Nothing. And yet the base demands that employers be authorized by the government to discriminate against gays and lesbians, that business owners be authorized to ban gays and lesbians from motels and hotels, that public officials be authorized to decline to perform government services for gays and lesbians, and so on. The special discrimination carve-out demanded by the base gets broader and broader every time new non-discrimination legislation is proposed. I don’t think that will stop any time soon.

    The Equality Act is a simple, elegant solution, adding gays and lesbians to the classes protected by a law that is well understood, has worked for over a half-century, and has been judicially tested. The Act doesn’t treat gays and lesbians as a special case, but instead treats gays and lesbians on an equal footing with everyone else. Enacting it is the right thing to do.

    It won’t happen, as you point out. So let’s see what the LCR proposes to do, and how the President and Republicans in Congress react to LCR’s “different version of an LGBT non-discrimination bill that would likely gain more support among GOP lawmakers in Congress”. I think that the chances of LGBT non-discrimination bills passing this session are as much puffs of wind as were Walter Olson’s prediction that President Trump would nominate an “openly gay” man or woman to the Cabinet or the Supreme Court, but I hope I’m proven wrong.

    While we are waiting, let’s see what the President does with respect to Executive Order 13672, which mandates basic LGBT employment non-discrimination policies by federal contractors (that is, businesses employing about 34 million people). LCR has made much of its efforts to convince the President to keep the EO in effect.

    When asked about it at a news conference the other day, Sean Spicer said only that: “I don’t know on that one. I have to get back to you on that. I don’t know that we’ve gotten that far in the list of executive orders, but I’d be glad to get back to you.”

    I’m not sure what that means, but I hope that LCR’s efforts to keep Executive Order 13672 in effect succeed.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The Equality Act is a simple, elegant solution, adding gays and lesbians to the classes protected by a law that is well understood, has worked for over a half-century, and has been judicially tested. The Act doesn’t treat gays and lesbians as a special case, but instead treats gays and lesbians on an equal footing with everyone else. Enacting it is the right thing to do.

      I suppose that I should make clear that I am writing about the Equality Act sans the provision removing application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to application of the Equality Act.

      Before RFRA, the Employment Division standard (“substantial burden”, “rational basis”) test applied to the Civil Rights Act of 1964, because the law is a law of general application. Since REFA, the stricter Sherbert/Yoder test (“substantial burden”, “compelling state interest”, “least restrictive means”) applies to the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

      Removing RFRA from application returns the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to the less strict Employment Division test.

      As I’ve made clear over the years, I think that the Sherbert/Yoder test embodied in RFRA is the religious exemption standard that should be applicable to all laws, period — local, state or federal, laws of general application or not.

      Some months ago, I wrote a short summary of the history and application of the various standards for Jorge. If you aren’t familiar with the ins and outs of religious freedom exemptions, feel free to take a look.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Don’t worry, Tom, I’ll unshut my mouth about the matter eventually : )

        Reply
    • posted by TJ on

      Id like it if both parties backed equality.
      but, I very much doubt that the Log Cabin Republicans will suddenly become major political players for equality.

      The HRC had limited political power in Wasington DC, and the initial evidence suggests that the HRC and the LCR will continue to have limited power.

      Very few lobbyists actually have much political power, especially when it comes to federal legislation.

      Reply
  2. posted by Jorge on

    I just got finished reading about the history of the Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell repeal, and the role the Log Cabin Republicans played in the lawsuit they filed seeking immediate reversal. In particular, the brief battle in court with the Justice Department over staying the repeal until the Defense Dept. could complete its implementation plan. Since I’m trying to make a point that the DoD study was awesome, I don’t have a very high opinion of the LCR right now.

    Reply
  3. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    The HRC message said the group had created a new “defy” logo and encouraged supporters to “resist” action by Trump that would harm LGBT people or roll back LGBT supportive policies put in place by President Barack Obama.

    And you would expect them to do what? Roll over and praise the President when he takes action that “harm LGBT people or roll back LGBT supportive policies”?

    Ain’t gonna happen.

    Sure, those [HRC, Victory Fund, et al] are voices that are going to be welcome in administration deliberations.

    Probably not. And that’s a good thing for homocons, is it not?

    You, LCR and other Republican-aligned homocons supporting President Trump now have the ball in your court, as your celebratory headline to this post (“LCR Up, HRC Down”) suggests.

    You have the most “gay-affirming”, “gay supportive” and “gay accepting” (your characterizations) Republican President in the history of the United States. You have an overwhelming majority in the House, and a workable majority in the Senate. You have the contacts, you have the influence, you have the power, you have the message that Republicans will accept. You have the opportunity to lead the Republican Party toward “equal means equal”.

    You can get what you want if you work for it. The ball is in your court.

    You complained for years the last eight years that the Obama administration didn’t move the ball fast enough to suit you, and when the administration did move the ball, you complained that it moved it in the wrong direction and/or in the wrong way.

    Now it is your turn. Take the damn ball and run with it.

    I’ll tell you one thing from years of experience. You won’t move the ball if all you do is whine.

    Reply
    • posted by TJ on

      Does Stephen really expect a third-way, centrist group like the HRC to ever be taken seriously by President-Birther-KGB Trump?

      Reply
  4. posted by JohnInCA on

    LCR had never been effective at persuading Conservatives/Republicans. Where is this sudden confidence coming from?

    And again, I’d love for my skepticism to be proved wrong.

    Reply
  5. posted by Walker on

    Tom Scharbach always writes more words of criticism than Stephen posts. Does he have his own blog? Or is his job just responding to Stephen 24/7?

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      To yours is the power and glory, Walker. But you won’t get the glory unless you are willing to exercise the power. So get on it.

      Here’s a thought: Amend the Equality Act to remove the prohibition on using RFRA as a defense, and then use the Republican majorities to pass it.

      Reply
    • posted by Houndentenor on

      I always find it funny that the best Stephen’s defenders can come up is to attack the fact that people post comments here. They don’t even bother countering the points made. Even they know what bullshit they are selling by being gay conservatives.

      Reply
  6. posted by TJ on

    Candidate Trump had zero interest in being endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign as a Republican nominee or as a possible Reform party nominee.

    Maybe if he had really wanted the endorsement, I could see an argument made about the Human Rights campaign, but not now.

    Im all for bipartisanship, but the Log Cabin Republicans havent been effective in the past. Neither was the short lived GOProud.

    Reply
  7. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Angelo … said the group would soon push for a different version of an LGBT non-discrimination bill that would likely gain more support among GOP lawmakers in Congress.

    No one expects the Republican leadership to favor an LGBT anti-discrimination bill. But if the Democrats introduced a common-sense measure with religious exemptions and got behind it, enough Republicans are likely to join them to get to a majority, and I believe Trump might very well sign it.

    So which is it going to be? Are Republicans going to craft legislation that will gain support among Republicans in Congress, or are Democrats expected to do so?

    Why shouldn’t Republicans propose a non-discrimination bill that Republicans can support, and depend on enough Democrats to join them to get a majority?

    It’s Log Cabin’s time …

    I think so. I just wonder if you did, too.

    I don’t mean to pound on you unduly, Stephen, but damn it, it is time for Republican-aligned gays and lesbians to get off their collective ass and stop looking to Democrats all the time.

    The question I have with respect to the Equality Act is this: Does Republican opposition to the Equality Act stem from the prohibition on using RFRA as a defense or does it stem from the equality?

    If it is the prohibition that’s the problem, then Republicans can use the power of the majority to strip the prohibition out of the Equality Act and put together a coalition of equality-minded Republicans plus enough Democrats to pass the bill. If it is the equality that’s the problem, well, hell, Republican-aligned gays and lesbians better get to work.

    According to its website, LCR is proudly celebrating 40 years of work within the Republican Party on behalf of gays and lesbians. Surely, after all those years of contacts with Republican lawmakers, LCR is better positioned to propose something that will get Republican support than Democrats.

    Reply
    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Stephen’s latest addendum insists that if Democrats passed a gay rights bill that was watered down enough it would get out of committee and that McConnell and Ryan would let it come up for a vote. There is no way he’s dumb enough to actually believe that.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Stephen’s latest addendum insists that if Democrats passed a gay rights bill that was watered down enough it would get out of committee and that McConnell and Ryan would let it come up for a vote. There is no way he’s dumb enough to actually believe that.

      As much as I think that the prohibition on using RFRA as a defense is unnecessary [*], I can’t conjure up a scenario when Democrats are going to propose the Equality Act without the prohibition. Republicans have been using “religious freedom” as a club on gays and lesbians for several years now, and the other constituencies protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964 can’t help but understand that the club could just as easily be turned on them, and probably will be.

      [*] I would prefer that the Equality Act go forward without the prohibition on RFRA defenses, but I don’t think that it makes a practical difference. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 has been tested in court many times over the last 50+ years with respect to religious exemption as it is applicable to race, ethnicity, gender and so on (about half of the time under Sherbert/Yoder and about half under Employment Division), and not once have the courts ruled that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 created a “substantial burden” upon religious exercise. In parallel state court cases to date, the same has been true with respect to religious exemption regarding sexual orientation.

      Reply
    • posted by TJ on

      Their is nothing stopping ANY elected member of Congress from introducing a bill. Does Stephen understand how Congress works?

      Once introduced, it gets sent to on

      Reply
  8. posted by Jorge on

    Candidate Trump had zero interest in being endorsed by the Human Rights Campaign as a Republican nominee or as a possible Reform party nominee.

    What use is the endorsement to Trump? A single upside down flag is worth a dozen endorsements. He can say the gays love him and continue doing his own thing.

    You, LCR and other Republican-aligned homocons supporting President Trump now have the ball in your court, as your celebratory headline to this post (“LCR Up, HRC Down”) suggests.

    I maintain my position that the opportunity has probably already passed. Trump has already decided a lot of what he wants to do and what he still has doubts on. We’re about to find out if rescinding any LGBT-related executive orders are on Trump’s agenda. In a couple of weeks we’ll also find out if they’re on Jeff Sessions’s and others’ agendas. It’ll take about another three months (the next 100 days) before the ball lands in our court again.

    Since right now DT is delivering smash after smash at the forces of “OMG You can’t do that!!!” in ways that align with his actual campagn commitments, I am in no way complaining.

    Reply
  9. posted by Jorge on

    “For scorched-earth Never Trumpers…the response to this complex challenge is simple: Resist everything. For everyone else, from Doubtful Trumpers to Hopeful Trumpers, more productive ways of engaging with this presidency are opening up.”

    Of course. Lindsey Graham and John Lewis (or “Mr. toothless,” as I can’t resist calling him lately for what happened when he tried to take a bite out of Trump) are a team. They’re working hand-in-hand to stop the Trumptatorship.

    No one expects the Republican leadership to favor an LGBT anti-discrimination bill. But if the Democrats introduced a common-sense measure with religious exemptions and got behind it, enough Republicans are likely to join them to get to a majority, and I believe Trump might very well sign it. But that’s the last thing the Democrats, and their LGBT auxiliaries, would want to happen.

    The DADT repeal compromise had the US military do a 10-month study on a repeal’s potential impact, in which certain “Moderate Risks” for the repeal were identified. An implementation and risk reduction plan was proposed, and it was decided that three different people in government would have to certify the plan’s success before the repeal took effect. The repeal was highly successful.

    The very word “compromise” implies that there was an opposition. John McCain filibustered the bill. If the compromise had not been agreed to, it is possible the repeal would not have happened at all. The fear that was struck in the hearts of the reformers made for better policy.

    There aren’t many other gay rights bills that strike terror in people’s hearts at the prospect that they may not pass.

    The conditions necessary for compromise can be met here. But it requires really strange scenes like Jeff Sessions and Dick Durbin meeting in the gym (are the days gone when the Senate was a forum for civic debate?)–something that didn’t happen often enough for them to come to an agreement a second time even on a reform effort they were both passionate about. There needs to be that spark of hope that says, we can do something powerful. We can right a great wrong. We can make this country better. And that tantalizing spark has to be just a bit delicate.

    Reply
  10. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Since right now DT is delivering smash after smash at the forces of “OMG You can’t do that!!!” in ways that align with his actual campagn commitments, I am in no way complaining.

    My fellow veterans stood up and fought back against the VA hiring freeze, with help from members of Congress, and the administration backed down without fanfare.

    The President talked the patriotism talk in his inaugural address, to be sure, but veterans are the ones who walked the walk.

    I get lectured on patriotism all the time by right-wingers, most of whom never served, let alone put blood on the ground. I’m tired of these damn loudmouths, and I’m glad the Loudmouth-in-Chief got push back on VA funding, despite your scorn.

    Reply
  11. posted by PolymathLevel8 on

    It’s sad. These one issue sites don’t understand or care that Trump will ruin the economy. Here it is all about gay rights. And we don’t worry that the new president will install trickle-down economics, a proven disaster.
    I’ve never been able to fathom the extreme self-involvement of the masses. They’re blind to everything but their own interests.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I’ve never been able to fathom the extreme self-involvement of the masses. They’re blind to everything but their own interests.

      Well, bask in your superiority.

      IGF has been around for about two decades now. Its purpose is to discuss matters gay and lesbian. That’s what we do. Feel free to hang around and catch up on the differing points of view from the masses or seek out another forum that suits you better.

      Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      I’d rather have these one issue sites than those organizations that pretend to be one issue but are really only on one side on every issue.

      Reply
    • posted by JohnInCA on

      “I’ve never been able to fathom the extreme self-involvement of the masses. They’re blind to everything but their own interests.”
      Have you spent much time studying time-slot algorithms in computers?

      To make a long story short, a single processor† can only work on one task at any given time. So if you have multiple tasks to do, you have to decide how you split up time between them.

      Now any given task will have (roughly) two important traits. Cycles-to-complete and priority.

      Mathematically we know that we’ll have the lowest average time if we do tasks in the “shortest task first” order. But we also know that if you are continuously adding tasks, that the big tasks never get done.

      Similarly, you may be tempted to say “do the highest priority tasks first”, but the same thing happens: it’s easy for the lowest priority tasks to never get done if high priority tasks keep being added.

      That’s why most computers and systems assign equal time-slices to each task and cycle through them. You get your 500 cycles, you get your 500 cycles, you get your 500 cycles, and so-on. There might be some tweaking for priority (high priority tasks get more time slices) but every tasks still gets some time slices. Mathematically, this is not optimal. You will raise the average time-to-completion over the “shortest task first” and you will slow down your high priority tasks compared to “high priority first”, but you avoid the problem of tasks being frozen out and never getting time.

      In this way, people are like computers. If we focus too much on the big high priority things, then the lower priority ones never get done. If we focus too much on the things we can do quickly, the big problems accumulate. If we want to actually get things done, we have to split time between big and little, high priority and low priority.

      Thats why you have special interest sites. This is our time-slice for LGBT issues. Have no doubt, most people that comment here will go on to other sites and read other news and probably comment there too. We can multitask our outrage and/or cheers.
      ________
      †Many computers these days have multiple processors, but lets talk about a single one to simplify things.

      Reply
  12. posted by Jorge on

    My fellow veterans stood up and fought back against the VA hiring freeze, with help from members of Congress, and the administration backed down without fanfare.

    Looks legit. The exemption allows them to maintain their current levels of operations and contracted services but not all positions are exempt. Meanwhile the Trump administration gets what it really wants and goes on a cost-snipping spree, if not a cost cutting spree.

    Although personally I think the publicity over the past several years suggests the possibility that the mere existence of the VA does more harm than good.

    I get lectured on patriotism all the time by right-wingers, most of whom never served, let alone put blood on the ground.

    Well naturally. It’s not without reason federal law protects veterans against discrimination in employment; us homefronters have a lot to say about the homefront. Just like this man has a lot to say about those women who decided to embarrass America’s elected champion against Russian President Shirtless the day after he took office.

    I’m tired of these damn loudmouths, and I’m glad the Loudmouth-in-Chief got push back on VA funding, despite your scorn.

    No problem. Stopping the Trumptatorship is in our mutual interest.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Although personally I think the publicity over the past several years suggests the possibility that the mere existence of the VA does more harm than good.

      The VA provides medical and mental health care and hospitalization for about 9 million vets a year.

      Many vets do not have reasonable, affordable access to other health care, particularly with respect to chronic service-related diseases that are expensive to treat and rapidly eat through private insurance limits, even when private insurance is available for those conditions.

      Many/most of the VA’s problems are directly related to lack of sufficient funding. The “talk the talk” patriots in Congress continue to cut funding at a time when the need for VA services and facilities is growing because of the growing number of veterans and the increased complexity of service-related conditions that are attendant to modern warfare.

      The VA is a long way from perfect, but it provides important and necessary services to veterans. And it provides an added, intangible benefit to veterans — the VA’s medical staff is familiar with service-related medical needs, and the environment is veteran-affirming. Believe me, it makes a difference to be around people who respect and honor service.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        Many/most of the VA’s problems are directly related to lack of sufficient funding.

        I was mostly with you until you mentioned this. VA health care is cheaper, but Congress doesn’t fund it enough? Health care is expensive.

        And it provides an added, intangible benefit to veterans — the VA’s medical staff is familiar with service-related medical needs, and the environment is veteran-affirming. Believe me, it makes a difference to be around people who respect and honor service.

        1) That can be done privately.

        (Just like abortion.)

        2) If the prim and proper Eleanor Roosevelt going to school and reading a book can provide quality and effective substance abuse treatment (with considerable known risks and inefficiencies), then that means you have to record the extra benefit you get from hiring recovering problem drinker George W. Bush and giving him books and schooling, and make a decision about if the extra cost is worth it.

        We went through an entire overhaul of our health care system, and are likely to go through another one, because of the tension between the cost of health care and the human right of universal health care. It’s probably not a good idea to subject the VA Hospitals to the same political winds, but I do not know that trying to maintain their traditional role makes sense given the current economic trends, either.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Jorge, there are just times when I can’t believe how clueless you are.

        Have you ever been in a VA hospital? Do you have any idea to be stuck in a chemo chair for hours (as my friend Gil does monthly) and how much it means to have the hospital volunteer be another veteran who treats you like a veteran, a compatriot, and not a patient? Or to sit in a waiting area and talk to other veterans who have the same/similar conditions, sharing experience and hope?

        Do you know that VA care is free, as are prescription drugs?

        Do you know what a service-related disability is, or that just under 4 million veterans are disabled as a result of their service?

        Do you have any idea what it costs to treat diabetes mellitus, or lymphoma, or Parkinson’s, or liver dysfunction, or any number of other diseases that resulted from Agent Orange exposure, or similar service-related diseases contracted by service personnel in more recent wars, over the course of a lifetime? Do you know anything about cut-off limitations in private insurance, and how quickly those diseases can hit those limitations?

        Did you bother to read the document I linked to about the consequences of the 2015 funding cut?

        It sure as hell doesn’t sound like it.

        Reply
        • posted by Jorge on

          Do you know that VA care is free, as are prescription drugs?

          I didn’t know that until your last post.

          Have you ever been in a VA hospital? Do you have any idea to be stuck in a chemo chair for hours (as my friend Gil does monthly) and how much it means to have the hospital volunteer be another veteran who treats you like a veteran, a compatriot, and not a patient? Or to sit in a waiting area and talk to other veterans who have the same/similar conditions, sharing experience and hope?

          No. Not really. Yes. Yes.

          To be honest, I find the idea of the government providing all that for free a little archaic. It means nothing to me that my opinion is a politically incorrect slight on a favored social group, only whether my chances of being right are high enough for me to be speculative or certain. I also think it might be better to have private organizations or charities pick up veteran-centered health care, or at the very least subcontract it out.

          Do you know the cost of not providing such services as the VA provides for free?

          No, I’m not talking about the mere fact that VA hospitals save lives and livelihoods. I’m talking about by how much.

          I am well aware of what I don’t know; that’s the whole point.

          Reply
          • posted by Doug on

            Free medical care for veterans was part of the bargain for joining the military. You don’t walk away from that bargain just because you don’t like it.

            Think about that the next time we are, as we currently are, sending men and women into battle.

          • posted by Lori Heine on

            If it’s not “archaic” to send our young people all over the world to get shot or blown up in the military serving this country, then it’s not archaic to pay for their medical care when they return home.

  13. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Final thought. According to their 2015 form 990 filings for tax year 2014 (the last ones you can view for free through online search), total annual revenue was:
    LCR: $      289,950.
    HRC: $37,406,706.

    Ignoring the Trump 14% debacle, Republicans historically garner about 25% of the LGBT vote, Democrats 75%. Assuming that Stephen’s assertion that HRC is so closely aligned with the Democratic Party as to be adjunct, and assuming that contributions to the two groups roughly should therefore follow party allegiance, then, given the $38 million LGBT contribution pot in 2014, LCR should have brought in about $9,500,000, and HRC about $28,500,000.

    The fact that HCR outperformed, and LCR underpeformed, party allegiance expectations by so large a margin suggests that other factors are operative.

    It might be that HRC’s non-political advocacy (e.g. the Corporate Equality Index as well as advocacy for equal treatment in adoption, health care and aging, HIV/AIDS, and so on) is perceived as sufficiently valuable to garner financial support among LGBTs, while LCR’s activities, which are solely political within the Republican Party, are not seen in that light.

    Or it might be that HRC is perceived as an effective advocate within the Democratic Party, while LCR is not seen as an effective advocate within the Republican Party.

    Or it might be that Republican-aligned LGBTs are cheapskates while Democratic-aligned LGBTs aren’t.

    Or it might be something else entirely.

    Your guess is as good as mine.

    Reply
    • posted by Jorge on

      Ignoring the Trump 14% debacle, Republicans historically garner about 25% of the LGBT vote,

      The LGB vote. They exit polling organizations only started asking it in the form of LGBT in 2016. I’d wait a few years to see if that creates a permanent baseline change.

      I will add one other possibility: the HRC may draw more donations from non-LGBT people (Democrats and otherwise), while the LCR fails to do so.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      I will add one other possibility: the HRC may draw more donations from non-LGBT people (Democrats and otherwise), while the LCR fails to do so.

      That’s a real possibility, because HRC has a history of aggressively courting “staight allies” and it is likely that many of them contribute.

      But the difference between the two organizations is marked. HCR has an annual income 150+ times that of LCR.

      LCR’s $239,000 is barely enough to pay Gregory Angelo, one staffer, the rent and the light bill. The number was so low that I thought Stephen might have made a mistake, so I checked.

      NonProfitFacts has a chart showing LCR’s income 2007-2013, and it is consistent with Stephen’s numbers. LCR raised roughly $800,000 in each 2007 and 2008, but thereafter LCR’s income dropped dramatically, down to about $350,000 per year, and it seems to have dropped even further in 2014. That’s not a good trend line.

      I wonder if the rise of other Republican-aligned LGBT-supportive organizations like the American Unity Fund might also be playing a role in LCR’s fundraising decline.

      Reply
  14. posted by Houndentenor on

    LCR only took in 290k in donations in an election year? That’s pathetic. Clearly they need a new fundraising strategy.

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The last detailed NonProfitFacts numbers for LCR are 2012, also an election year.

      In 2012, LCR reported revenue of $316,024 and expenses of $348,408. Of the expenses, $169,826 (49%) was spent on compensation and payroll taxes.

      In 2012, HRC reported revenue of $32,609,559 and expenses of $32,002,730. Of the expenses, $8,877,094 (27%) was spent on compensation and payroll taxes.

      LCR has the earmarks of an organization in trouble.

      Reply
  15. posted by Mike in Houston on

    Josh Rogin is reporting (tweeting) that the next shoe to fall is an LGBT EO:

    EO could allow fed employees to refuse to serve LGBT based on belief marriage is b/t man & woman or gender is immutable from birth

    https://twitter.com/joshrogin

    Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      Josh Rogin is reporting (tweeting) that the next shoe to fall is an LGBT EO …

      The White House seems to be leaking like a sieve tonight, and what they are leaking doesn’t look positive. If the leaks are right, it is beginning to look like more than a few homocons were suckered in. Sad.

      Whatever the case, we’ll see. Actions are what count. I’m going to be watching the following over the next few months:

      (1) COURTS/CASES — Judicial nominations and positions taken by the DOJ in federal cases involving LGBT issues.
      (2) LEGISLATION — The administration’s position on federal legislation affecting gays and lesbians.
      (3) EXECUTIVE ORDERS — Issuance of future Executive Orders affecting gays and lesbians.
      (4) REGULATIONS — The administration’s additional actions with respect to departmental regulations implementing Windsor and Obergefell, and regulations protecting gays and lesbians from discrimination in employment, medical care and hospital visitation, housing and other areas.
      (5) LAW ENFORCEMENT — DOJ enforcement/nonenforcement of federal laws protecting gays and lesbians from violence and discrimination.
      (6) HIV/AIDS — Administration action on HIV/AIDS funding and programs, and actions with respect to the National HIV/AIDS Strategy.
      (7) INTERNATIONAL — The administration’s actions with respect to existing policies encouraging countries, particularly allies like Russia and our allies in the Middle East, to end repression of basic human rights for gays and lesbians.
      (8) SOCIAL SECURITY — The administration’s actions with respect to existing policies regarding recognition of out-of-state same-sex marriages contracted prior to Obergefell.

      We’ll have a good idea what Republicans mean by “gay-affirming”, “gay supportive” and “gay accepting” soon enough. Maybe as early as this week.

      Reply
    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The Washington Post reports tonight:

      The White House is embroiled in a debate over whether to reverse some key protections that the Obama administration extended to lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender workers, according to several people briefed on the process.
      A draft of a potential executive order began circulating in Washington over the weekend that would overturn President Barack Obama’s directive barring discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in the federal workforce and by federal contractors.
      ADVERTISING

      But individuals familiar with deliberations within the White House, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no final decision has been made, said that the details of the policy remain in flux and that it is far from certain President Trump would ultimately issue such an order.

      The speculation can’t be trusted because we’ve seen too many examples already when a spokesperson for the administration says something, only to be contradicted by a tweet, and the tweet walked back the next day by administrative spokespersons.

      Wait and see. Actions count. We’ll know soon enough.

      Reply
      • posted by Jorge on

        If he does sign such an order, the Trump administration would be well advised to announce it just before he attends a public LGBT event so he can get booed. That’s how former NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg did it (of course that was not by design). Bonus points if Trump endorses ENDA.

        Now, there are two different LGBT-related policies that the Obama administration began on its own: anti-LGBT discrimination in the workplace, and anti-transgender discrimination in the schools and in the states.

        In the event President Trump concludes he has no alternative but to reverse the one or more Obama administration executive orders or other actions, that is only one part of the question. The second part is how much of an emergency it is to reverse them.

        The refugee order was so urgent they had to be done quickly and carelessly. How can you ask someone to be the last person to die because you needed time to study the issue? Take action to stop everything now, study the issue later. Trump has issued a few other orders like that. With the sanctuary city policy you have something similar but it’s used more as a negotiation tactic. We already know what we’re going to do, the specifics of how to do it will come later.

        With the anti-LGBT discrimination executive orders, the objectives for reversing them are diffuse–different people would emphasize different objectives–law and order vs. religious freedom. Either way, the urgency is abstract and it is not clear that he has a clear constituency for them. If anything his populist mandate depends on a measure of support from the LGBT community. Granted, a segment that doesn’t like other LGBT people at all, but I would not read too much into that.

        In contrast, the Justice Department letters and lawsuits have more significant consequences, but still nothing that can be said to be putting lives in danger.

        Trump should wait.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        Well, Jorge, let’s watch and wait, see what the President and the administration actually do. The fact that the White House is leaking like a sieve on this one suggests that there is a lot of internal conflict about the draft Executive Order.

        The draft order was, if the descriptions are accurate, almost certainly drafted by the conservative Christian wing-nut faction in the administration, because it hits all the notes in the hymn conservative Christians have been singing for years. To me, it looks like another faction in the administration is trying to derail some or all of the actions proposed in the draft by creating a shit storm before the fact,

        And a shit storm there will be, no matter what the President actually signs. If the order is as draconian as the leaking suggests, then the shit storm will come from gays and lesbians. If the order is “gay-affirming”, “gay supportive” and “gay accepting” in any meaningful way, then the shit storm will come from conservative Christians.

        But that observation aside, speculation is useless.

        Reply
      • posted by Tom Scharbach on

        A bit of good news: The White House has issued a statement that Executive Order 13672 will remain in effect. So far, so good.

        Reply

Leave a Comment