Supporters of same-sex marriage rallied outside a Beverly Hills, Calif., hotel last month, where President Obama was attending a Democratic party fundraiser.
(Mario Anzuoni/Reuters/File)Photos (1 of 1)
Obama move on same-sex benefits: small costs, big politics
By Laurent Belsie | 06.17.09
President Obama’s move Wednesday to extend some employee benefits to same-sex partners of federal workers is all about symbolism and politics – and not about the economics.
Which is too bad, because a look at the costs and benefits help put the politics in context.
To begin with, the benefits being extended are limited. For example: Mr. Obama’s memorandum of understanding reportedly will allow employees to take sick leave to care for a domestic partner or their children. Partners would be allowed to sign up for long-term care benefits, but not healthcare benefits.
How much would this cost the taxpayer? If the private sector is any guide, it’s minimal: less that 2 percent of total benefit payouts, according to a 2005 Hewitt Associates study. That’s because, on average, only 1 percent of employees elect to take domestic partner benefits – that’s all domestic partners, not just same-sex ones – when they are offered it, the study found.
If so few people use them, why do slightly more than half (.pdf) of Fortune 500 companies offer such benefits? To recruit and retrain employees. (Seven of 10 companies cited it as the No. 1 reason in the Hewitt Associates study.) Thus, Obama’s extension of benefits may help broaden the pool of applicants for federal jobs, but only a little.
Of course, the real reason for his move is political. By defending the Defense of Marriage Act last week with language that gay-marriage advocates found offensive, the Justice Department set off a furor within the gay-lesbian community.
Many prominent donors are pulling out of a June 25 fundraiser by the Democratic National Committee for the gay-lesbian-transgender community. Gay-rights activists are angry, not only with Obama but openly gay Rep. Barney Frank (D) of Massachusetts for saying the fundraiser should go forward. And many are beginning to contrast Obama’s campaign rhetoric with the nonactions that his administration has taken on issues such as don’t-ask, don’t-tell.
The Defense of Marriage Act, incidentally, makes those benefits extended by the White House more expensive (.pdf) for unmarried partners from a tax point of view.
Wednesday’s actions may smooth some feathers in the gay community, but it may well ruffle those of religious conservatives. In this debate, the politics swamp the economics.
_________________
– You can follow us on Twitter.
Comments
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
Leave a Comment
We do not publish all comments, and we do not publish comments immediately. The comments feature is a forum to discuss the ideas in our stories. Constructive debate - even pointed disagreement - is welcome, but personal attacks on other commenters are not, and will not be published.
Tip: Do not write a novel. Keep it short. We will not publish lengthy comments. Come up with your own statements. This is not a place to cut and paste an email you received. If we recognize it as such, we won't post it.
Please do not post any comments that are commercial in nature or that violate copyrights.
Finally, we will not publish any comments that we regard as obscene, defamatory, or intended to incite violence.
1. waldo5 | 06.17.09
Apparently President Obama is trying to placate the gay community in response to their recent criticisms and their accusing the President of taking few if any beneficial actions for the community. The President should move slowly and carefully on issues such as these. He has no time to waste or to get involved in any more disputes than the ones he is involved with already. He has a full plate, in fact–an impossible job at a critical time in world history. He is the man of the hour, one who carries the burden of the world on his shoulders. He is like the Churchill who came just at the right time to save England from the Nazis. Support for whatever he does is absolutely necessary. Criticism, yes—he welcomes that. But outright revolution against him at this time would be unwise and non-productive. Such actions would only reverberate against the actors, shooting themselves in the foot, biting the hand that feeds them. It’s time for the unity we had during World War II. Things are just as bad now as they were then.