My presidential endorsement: voting your pocketbook

Timothy Kincaid

November 2nd, 2012

In our political discourse, we often hear the declaration that someone or other “only cares about their money”. It’s meant to be an insult. I, on the other hand, assume that everyone cares about their money. After all, they worked damn hard for it.

Sure, there are those few who inherit fortunes or for whom society assumes their burden, but most of us work for our money. Not because we enjoy turning over half of our waking hours to someone else’s control, or because we delight in smiling and being polite to inconsiderate clients and customers, or because we appreciate crawling out of bed when we aren’t feeling great, ironing a shirt, scraping the snow off the windshield, and driving through the pre-dawn so that we can start the morning hearing a recap of someone else’s favorite television show. It’s because we like to eat and have a roof over our heads.

I think it’s fair to say that even if we love our jobs, most of us would much rather win the mega-lottery.

So when I hear someone say “he only cares about his money”, I assume that it must coming from someone that doesn’t work for a living. And when I hear that someone votes their pocketbook, I think that this is a reasonable decision.

But voting for one’s financial best interest is complex and the decisions are not as easy as picking a party.

Republicans tell us that they want lower taxes and to cut government waste. But they never actually seem to get around to cutting any waste and those tax breaks ever don’t seem to impact my paycheck much.

Democrats tell us they will tax the rich to provide more services for everyone. But it seems that those services never apply to me – and if they do, I have to pay a “fee” for them.

Both parties promise they will improve the economy – and the economy impacts everyone. But who do you believe? Frankly, neither party has been very successful at illustrating how their policies will break the economic cycle that has been going on for decades. And while I have my opinions, based on my understanding of economic trends and on my basic understanding of human nature, I’m not convinced that either party’s ideas will put all that much more or less in my pocket.

So it’s all a bit of a crap shoot. You go for the guy that seems to have the best sense of what will help. You look at historical trends and see if they can guide you. But really – for most of us – there’s no candidate that will significantly and directly impact the amount of money that is in your pocket. For most Americans, there’s no objective way to vote your pocketbook.

Unless you’re gay.

In 2012, if you are gay, you actually can vote your pocketbook. Because, unlike most other sub-populations in this country, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney actually have policy objectives that can directly impact you.

Gay people pay higher taxes. One candidate wants to keep it that way and one has taken steps – and is encouraging more – that will make your wallet feel the impact of government on a more equal setting. It all comes down to DOMA.

Barack Obama believes that same-sex couples should be allowed access to marriage and Mitt Romney believes that they should not. And while these beliefs have not historically had much real consequence, in 2012 they do. It’s not just opinion, it’s not just position, it’s money in your pocket.

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) forbids the federal government from recognizing both gay couples and the rights of states to set their own marriage laws. It even invalidates the rights of states to have other states honor their contracts. It is unconstitutional. Any constitutional scholar that is unshackled from hierarchal religious affiliation (in which they are bound to find law to be subject to their dogma) would agree that this law is unconstitutional on the face of it – and not even just the “all men are created equal” part. It’s simply bad law.

President Obama rightly noted that the law was unconstitutional and his Justice Department has refused to defend it in court, turning the defense of this mess to the Speaker of the House. John Boehner hired an attorney (Paul Clement), assigned a budget of $1.5 million (money far better spent elsewhere, but paltry in terms of multi-state litigation) and tried to never mention the word “DOMA” again in public. Even very conservative Republican judges are ruling DOMA unconstitutional.

But Mitt Romney has pledged to defend this law.

Oh yes, Romney would immediately direct the Justice Department to defend the federal government’s discriminatory law. And I have no reason to believe that they would not do so diligently.

And there is a risk that this could result in the Supreme Court finding it constitutional. Unlikely, but certainly more likely with a fierce Justice Department defense.

And, if you have a spouse or ever hope to have one, that’s money out of your pocket. Here’s how:

Federal Income Tax – In the six marriage states – and some of the civil union / domestic partnership states – taxpayers prepare their state income taxes selecting the “married” category. However, due to DOMA, the returns have to be redone for federal purposes and filed as though the taxpayer were single. And unless both partners make virtually the same amount of money, that can result in higher income taxes than a comparable straight couple. Even if it doesn’t cost you more taxes, it certainly can cost more in tax preparation.

(Oddly enough, in California and Nevada (where marriage is banned) and in Washington (where it is not yet legal) due to the way in which the state legislature has included same sex couples in the community property laws, the IRS has ruled that same-sex couples must each report half of their combined income. This helps with avoiding higher tax brackets in unequal income situations, but still leaves other issues unresolved.)

Immigration
– if your spouse is not a legal resident – or their residency expires – under DOMA they can be deported. And even if they are not, an immigration department that is hostile to gay couples can result in much higher legal bills than one that is favorable.

Inheritance Tax
– under DOMA your spouse is a total stranger, so death taxes apply. And that means that, unlike heterosexuals, the accumulation of your earnings and savings is subjected to taxes when you leave it to your spouse, and again when your spouse dies and leaves it to your kids. The net result is that your children receive half the inheritance that a comparable straight couple’s children will receive.

Gay Tax – This one is the most obscene of all tax differences and, for unfathomable reasons, it is the one that no politicians of either party seem willing to address. If your brother covers his wife on his health insurance policy at work, it is a non-taxable benefit. If you, however, cover your wife (or domestic partner) on your health insurance policy at work, the IRS requires your boss to report the amount as income to you and they tax it. This can mean hundreds of dollars a year paid in taxes, just for being gay.

(As many employers in non-marriage states now honor domestic partnerships, this is not exactly a DOMA issue. Even if DOMA is overturned, many gay employees will remain subject to the Gay Tax.)

Life costs – There are thousands of little advantages and financial benefits to being married. Some, like gym membership or the ability to inherit rental rights, are direct and obvious. Others are indirect, such as the extra time required because “you aren’t her parent” or “only his spouse can sign for this”. If you live in a state in which there are protections, many of these have been addressed. But in areas where it is left up to the goodwill of businesses and service providers, much of this is a matter of social expectancy. And having a president who sees you as married helps set that tone.

While some of these hit a few individuals more than others (for example: Edie Windsor, who was forced to pay an inheritance tax of $363,053), the life costs impact all of us. And these costs, over a lifetime, are substantial.

So while there could be a legitimate argument that our civil rights are a more important consideration than our pocketbook, I don’t think that in this election they are in competition. It is because of our civil freedoms and equalities and also because of our pocketbooks that I endorse Barack Obama for reelection on Tuesday.

Timothy Kincaid

November 2nd, 2012

In the spirit of full disclosure, I have to let you know that I won’t be voting for the candidate that I endorse.

I will be voting for Libertarian Gary Johnson. I live in California and have the luxury of knowing that my vote cannot possibly have any impact on the results. So I can vote for the guy who most closely reflects my views on the broadest range of issues.

If there were any chance of the electoral votes going the other way I would vote for President Obama. But he will win by double digits in my state, regardless of what I do.

But that’s my state, and probably not yours. Please consider that if you live in a swing state, a close state, or pretty much any state other than CA, WA, MA, VT and CT, it’s probably best if you let that Libertarian, Green, or other third party candidate fend for themselves and vote for the President to be reelected.

Ben in Oakland

November 2nd, 2012

According to the anti marriage people, married life improves all measures of prosperity and health for married people. So, if we’re not allowed to be married, we will be disadvantaged in terms of prosperity and health.

Another pocketbook reason to vote for people who support us.

Priya Lynn

November 2nd, 2012

Way to go, Timothy. ; )

MAJeff

November 2nd, 2012

Gary Johnson is a Gilded Age lunatic who’s pro-pot and pro-SSM. He may be less anti-gay than Romney, but he’s surely someone who favors the same upward distribution of wealth and income. Hear him on the radio last night…he’s basically a Randian lunatic.

TampaZeke

November 2nd, 2012

Hear, hear Timothy!

Very well stated.

Neon Genesis

November 2nd, 2012

I’m confused. What’s wrong with being pro-pot again?

MCB

November 3rd, 2012

@Neon Genesis
I think a better way of wording that sentence would have been, “Gary Johnson is a Gilded Age lunatic who just happens to be pro-pot and pro-SSM.”

Jay

November 3rd, 2012

Ask Edith Windsor which candidate would be better for her pocketbook. She had to pay $350,000 in taxes that she would not have had to pay had she been married to a man instead of a woman. President Obama is fighting to have DOMA declared unconstitutional; Romney has said that he will defend DOMA.

In any case, the Democratic Party’s record on job creation and other economic indicators is far better than the Republicans. Vote Obama.

Hyhybt

November 3rd, 2012

The word “only” is important there. Yes, everybody cares about their own money, but many people care about other things too.

Robert

November 4th, 2012

Timothy,

I agree with your reasoning (somewhat) in this piece. I’m glad you endorsed Obama over Romney, but it really isn’t a legitimate endorsement if you plan to vote for someone else. But I am understanding the reasoning you give so that those in more competetive states will vote for Obama.

Good on you for posting the reasons this is good for EVERY one.

And JAY,
Tim did in fact mention the case of Ms Windsor. It’s right up there in the article…

Leave A Comment

All comments reflect the opinions of commenters only. They are not necessarily those of anyone associated with Box Turtle Bulletin. Comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

(Required)
(Required, never shared)

PLEASE NOTE: All comments are subject to our Comments Policy.

 

Latest Posts

"The Intel On This Wasn't 100 Percent"

From Fake News To Real Bullets: This Is The New Normal

NC Gov McCrory Throws In The Towel

Colorado Store Manager Verbally Attacks "Faggot That Voted For Hillary" In Front of 4-Year-Old Son

Associated Press Updates "Alt-Right" Usage Guide

A Challenge for Blue Bubble Democrats

Baptist Churches in Dallas, Austin Expelled Over LGBT-Affirming Stance

FBI Reports Massive Surge In Anti-Muslim Hate Crimes in 2015

Featured Reports

What Are Little Boys Made Of?

In this original BTB Investigation, we unveil the tragic story of Kirk Murphy, a four-year-old boy who was treated for “cross-gender disturbance” in 1970 by a young grad student by the name of George Rekers. This story is a stark reminder that there are severe and damaging consequences when therapists try to ensure that boys will be boys.

Slouching Towards Kampala: Uganda’s Deadly Embrace of Hate

When we first reported on three American anti-gay activists traveling to Kampala for a three-day conference, we had no idea that it would be the first report of a long string of events leading to a proposal to institute the death penalty for LGBT people. But that is exactly what happened. In this report, we review our collection of more than 500 posts to tell the story of one nation’s embrace of hatred toward gay people. This report will be updated continuously as events continue to unfold. Check here for the latest updates.

Paul Cameron’s World

In 2005, the Southern Poverty Law Center wrote that “[Paul] Cameron’s ‘science’ echoes Nazi Germany.” What the SPLC didn”t know was Cameron doesn’t just “echo” Nazi Germany. He quoted extensively from one of the Final Solution’s architects. This puts his fascination with quarantines, mandatory tattoos, and extermination being a “plausible idea” in a whole new and deeply disturbing light.

From the Inside: Focus on the Family’s “Love Won Out”

On February 10, I attended an all-day “Love Won Out” ex-gay conference in Phoenix, put on by Focus on the Family and Exodus International. In this series of reports, I talk about what I learned there: the people who go to these conferences, the things that they hear, and what this all means for them, their families and for the rest of us.

Prologue: Why I Went To “Love Won Out”
Part 1: What’s Love Got To Do With It?
Part 2: Parents Struggle With “No Exceptions”
Part 3: A Whole New Dialect
Part 4: It Depends On How The Meaning of the Word "Change" Changes
Part 5: A Candid Explanation For "Change"

The Heterosexual Agenda: Exposing The Myths

At last, the truth can now be told.

Using the same research methods employed by most anti-gay political pressure groups, we examine the statistics and the case studies that dispel many of the myths about heterosexuality. Download your copy today!

And don‘t miss our companion report, How To Write An Anti-Gay Tract In Fifteen Easy Steps.

Testing The Premise: Are Gays A Threat To Our Children?

Anti-gay activists often charge that gay men and women pose a threat to children. In this report, we explore the supposed connection between homosexuality and child sexual abuse, the conclusions reached by the most knowledgeable professionals in the field, and how anti-gay activists continue to ignore their findings. This has tremendous consequences, not just for gay men and women, but more importantly for the safety of all our children.

Straight From The Source: What the “Dutch Study” Really Says About Gay Couples

Anti-gay activists often cite the “Dutch Study” to claim that gay unions last only about 1½ years and that the these men have an average of eight additional partners per year outside of their steady relationship. In this report, we will take you step by step into the study to see whether the claims are true.

The FRC’s Briefs Are Showing

Tony Perkins’ Family Research Council submitted an Amicus Brief to the Maryland Court of Appeals as that court prepared to consider the issue of gay marriage. We examine just one small section of that brief to reveal the junk science and fraudulent claims of the Family “Research” Council.

Daniel Fetty Doesn’t Count

Daniel FettyThe FBI’s annual Hate Crime Statistics aren’t as complete as they ought to be, and their report for 2004 was no exception. In fact, their most recent report has quite a few glaring holes. Holes big enough for Daniel Fetty to fall through.