Is the United States Becoming and Oligarchy?

While the United States still has the political trappings of a democracy, economically, it seems rapidly headed toward becoming an oligarchy where wealth and power is becoming increasingly concentrated in the few.  Not since the Gilded Age have we seen such extremes in wealth and and such concentrated attacks on safety and environmental protection regulations. Such attacks are, of course are motivated so that the few can amass even more wealth even as average citizens suffer physically and economically. As a column in the New York Times notes, this is NOT the model that the Founding Fathers envisioned.  Instead, they favored a political and economic system where "the greatest happiness of the greatest Number is the point to be obtained."  This concept could not be further than the model pushed by the Trump/Pence regime and today's GOP which favors the few over the many.   To win in November, 2020 - and November 2019 here in Virginia - Democrats need to push the vision of the Founders and rebut Trump's efforts to label them all as socialists (except Bernie Sanders, who outright states he's a socialist).  Here are column excerpts:

Pete Buttigieg, who’s shown an impressive knack for putting matters well in these early days of the 2020 presidential race, nailed it recently when Chuck Todd of NBC asked him about capitalism. Of course I’m a capitalist, he said; America “is a capitalist society.”

But, he continued: “It’s got to be democratic capitalism.”

Mr. Buttigieg said that when capitalism becomes unrestrained by democratic checks and impulses, that’s no longer the kind of capitalism that once produced broad prosperity in this country. “If you want to see what happens when you have capitalism without democracy, you can see it very clearly in Russia,” he said. “It turns into crony capitalism, and that turns into oligarchy.”

[H]is rhetoric reminds us of a crucial point: There is, or should be, a democratic element to capitalism — and an economic element to how we define democracy.

After all, oligarchy does have an economic element to it; in fact, it is explicitly economic. Oligarchy is the rule of the few, and these few have been understood since Aristotle’s time to be men of wealth, property, nobility, what have you.

But somehow, as the definition of democracy has been handed down to us over the years, the word has come to mean the existence and exercise of a few basic rights and principles. The people — the “demos” — are imbued with no particular economic characteristic. This is wrong. Our definition of democracy needs to change.

Democracy can’t flourish in a context of grotesque concentration of wealth. This idea is neither new nor radical nor alien. It is old, mainstream and as American as Thomas Jefferson.

I invoke Jefferson for a reason. Everyone knows how he was occupying his time in the summer of 1776; he was writing the Declaration of Independence. But what was he up to that fall? He was a member of the Virginia House of Delegates, and he was taking the lead in writing and sponsoring legislation to abolish the commonwealth’s laws upholding “entail” (which kept large estates within families across generations) and primogeniture.
He believed, as the founders did generally, that excess inherited wealth was fundamentally incompatible with democracy.

They were most concerned with inherited wealth, as was the Scottish economist Adam Smith, whom conservatives invoke constantly today but who would in fact be appalled by the propagandistic phrase “death tax” — in their time, inherited wealth was the oppressive economic problem.

They saw clearly the link between democratic health and general economic prosperity. Here is John Adams, not exactly Jefferson’s best friend: All elements of society, he once wrote, must “cooperate in this one democratical principle, that the end of all government is the happiness of the People: and in this other, that the greatest happiness of the greatest Number is the point to be obtained.” “Happiness” to the founders meant economic well-being, and note that Adams called it “democratical.”

So, yes, democracy and the kind of economic inequality we’ve seen in this country in recent decades don’t mix.

A number of scholars have made these arguments in recent years, notably Ganesh Sitaraman in his book “The Crisis of the Middle-Class Constitution.” All that work has been vitally important. But now that some politicians are saying it, we can finally have the broad national conversation we’ve desperately needed for years.

Bernie Sanders has proposed an inheritance tax that the founders would love, and Elizabeth Warren has proposed a wealth tax of which they’d surely approve. But you don’t have to be a supporter of either of those candidates or their plans to get behind the general idea that great concentration of wealth is undemocratic.

Policies built around this idea will not turn America into the Soviet Union or, in the au courant formulation, Venezuela. They will make it the nation the founders intended. And this, as Mr. Buttigieg’s words suggest, is how Democratic candidates should answer the socialism question (with the apparent exception of the socialist Mr. Sanders). No, I’m a capitalist. And that’s why I want capitalism to change.

The Republican Party War on Children

I make no apologies for my past statements that, in my view, I do not fathom how a decent and moral person person can continue to be a Republican.  And that view is without even factoring in the toxicity of Der Trumpenführer and/or the RNC's full support of Roy Moore.  If one is a true follower of Christ - and the GOP claims to be the party of "Christian values" - it is impossible not to support the feeding of the hungry, aiding the poor and/or sick, and sheltering the homeless, especially in the case of children, yet the Republican Party is engaged in an all out war on children, not to mention the elderly after Paul Ryan's announcement that in 2018 Congressional Republicans want to put Medicare. Medicaid and Social Security benefits on the chopping block in order to pay for huge tax cuts for the obscenely wealthy and large corporations.  Interestingly, at a holiday social gathering tonight I talk briefly with a friend who has historically identified as a Christian and Republican, yet who now feels that he can no longer remain a Republican.  Ironically, this individual wanted to talk to me about my departure from the GOP a significant number of years ago and how he might make the transition from the GOP to the Democrats.   Meanwhile, a piece in New York Times looks at the GOP efforts to harm children.  Here are excerpts:

Would you be willing to take health care away from a thousand children with the bad luck to have been born into low-income families so that you could give millions of extra dollars to just one wealthy heir?

You might think that this question is silly, hypothetical and has an obvious answer. But it’s not at all hypothetical, and the answer apparently isn’t obvious. For it’s a literal description of the choice Republicans in Congress seem to be making as you read this.

The Children’s Health Insurance Program, or CHIP, is basically a piece of Medicaid targeted on young Americans. It was introduced in 1997, with bipartisan support. Last year it covered 8.9 million kids. But its funding expired more than two months ago. Republicans keep saying they’ll restore the money, but they keep finding reasons not to do it; state governments, which administer the program, will soon have to start cutting children off.

The other day Senator Orrin Hatch, asked about the program (which he helped create), once again insisted that it will be funded — but without saying when or how (and there don’t seem to be any signs of movement on the issue). And he further declared, “The reason CHIP’s having trouble is that we don’t have money anymore.” Then he voted for an immense tax cut.

And one piece of that immense tax cut is a big giveaway to inheritors of large estates. Under current law, a married couple’s estate pays no tax unless it’s worth more than $11 million, so that only a handful of estates — around 5,500, or less than 0.2 percent of the total number of deaths a year — owe any tax at all. The number of taxable estates is also, by the way, well under one one-thousandth of the number of children covered by CHIP.

But Republicans still consider this tax an unacceptable burden on the rich. The Senate bill would double the exemption to $22 million; the House bill would eliminate the estate tax entirely.

So now let’s talk dollars. CHIP covers a lot of children, but children’s health care is relatively cheap compared with care for older Americans. In fiscal 2016 the program cost only $15 billion, a tiny share of the federal budget. Meanwhile, under current law the estate tax is expected to bring in about $20 billion, more than enough to pay for CHIP.

By their actions, Republicans are showing that they consider it more important to give extra millions to one already wealthy heir than to provide health care to a thousand children. . . . There is no plausible argument to the effect that letting wealthy heirs claim their inheritance tax-free will make the economy boom.

What about the argument that estate taxes are a burden on small businesses and family farms? That’s a total, thoroughly debunked myth: Each year only around 80 — eight-zero — small businesses and farms pay any estate tax at all. And when you hear about family farms broken up to pay estate tax, remember: Nobody has ever come up with a modern example.

Then there’s the argument of Senator Chuck Grassley that we need to eliminate estate taxes to reward those who don’t spend their money on “booze or women or movies.” Yes, indeed, letting the likes of Donald Trump Jr. inherit wealth tax-free is a reward for their fathers’ austere lifestyles.

Think about it. Children who get adequate care are more likely to be healthier and more productive when they become adults, which means that they’ll earn more and pay more in taxes. They’re also less likely to become disabled and need government support. One recent study estimated that the government in fact earns a return of between 2 and 7 percent on the money it spends insuring children.

[I]t’s still hard to believe that a whole political party would balk at doing the decent thing for millions of kids while rushing to further enrich a few thousand wealthy heirs.

That is, however, exactly what’s happening. And it’s as bad, in its own way, as that same party’s embrace of a child molester because they expect him to vote for tax cuts.

Again, based on this example alone, how do decent moral people remain Republicans?  Are the sticking their heads in the sand?  Or, do they think all of these children are non-whites and, therefore, disposable trash.  The moral bankruptcy is complete. I left the years ago and now I refrain from calling myself a Christian given what the evangelical Christians and "family values" republicans have done to destroy the Christian brand.

Racism: Why Many Whites Give Trump/the GOP a Pass on Giveaways to the Rich

As noted in prior posts, Donald Trump, a/k/a Der Trumpenführer's "tax plan" is based on fairy tale assumptions and will result in huge new deficits if passed and throw the vast majority of the tax cuts to the very wealthy and large corporations.  But one example is the elimination of the estate tax that currently only impacts married couples with a net estate of over $11 million.  Average Americans simply get no benefit from a repeal of the estate tax, yet many foolishly support its elimination.  Similarly, many working class whites voted for Trump and Republican candidates even though for the last 37 years most of the GOP's policies have worked against the working class. So why the support for those who are behind the economic destruction of these people?  In a word, racism.  The GOP for decades now has played off of white racial animosities.   For an added bonus, the GOP and now Trump have also played to Christian extremists, LGBT rights being but one of the favored whipping boys to get out the GOP base on election day.  A piece in Slate looks at this disturbing phenomenon which has no sign of abating.  Here are excerpts:

Donald Trump wants to give himself a tax cut.

His new tax plan, a one-page summary unveiled on Wednesday in the last-minute scramble for an accomplishment before the end of his first 100 days, would cut the business rate down to 15 percent. Now, Trump isn’t a business, but he owns one, and it’s not structured like a typical one. Instead, it’s a “pass-through” corporation, meaning its earnings are passed through to the owners’ individual returns and then taxed at the appropriate marginal rate. Trump’s tax cut is structured to slash rates on pass-throughs as well other corporate forms. In other words, if passed, the president will save himself a nice chunk of change, on the order of tens of millions of dollars.

Trump’s plan would slash individual and business rates, repeal the estate tax, and end the alternative minimum tax (which hits a number of affluent households, in addition to the highest income earners). What’s more, Trump would eliminate the 3.8 percent investment surtax found in the Affordable Care Act, another break for the wealthiest households and estates.

Together, these tax cuts would cost an estimated $5.5 trillion over the next 10 years, according to a preliminary analysis from the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget.  . . . with $20 trillion added to the national debt by 2036.

This is just gravy for the rich: The large bulk of these cuts will go to the highest earners and wealthiest Americans. More than 30 percent of income gains accrue to those with annual incomes more than $200,000, according to the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, with 14.3 percent accruing to those with incomes above $1 million.

His budget would slash tens of billions of dollars from anti-poverty programs; his health care plan would leave tens of millions of Americans without health insurance; and his tax proposals would blow a hole in the federal budget, starving the government of revenue and leaving future Americans the burden of attempting to re-knit the social safety net.

At first glance, it’s an odd populism that takes from the many to give to the few, that abandons the anxious and suffering in favor of the wealthy and comfortable. But remember, Trump’s populism wasn’t just an appeal to jobs and economic interest—it was a racial appeal.  Trump cast blame on Muslims, Hispanic immigrants, and foreign others; he pledged to reopen the mines, recover the factories, and restore the white male industrial wage-earner to his perceived place at the top of the material and social hierarchy.

If nothing else, the racial interests of white Americans have always been at the forefront of white politics, a powerful force across class and social lines. The collapse of support for all kinds of public goods, from robust schools to neighborhood pools, is tied to the perceived beneficiaries. When the majority of white Americans believed those beneficiaries looked like themselves, they backed those investments. When they didn’t, they rejected them, either explicitly or eventually under the guise of “color blind” ideologies.

[N]ow would not be the first time that millions of white Americans backed racial demagogues in the destruction of public goods as a means to restore white hegemony over a smaller, more limited public. We would, in a way, be reverting to form, extending to the country what has defined those regions where race hierarchy was most rigid.

 Yes, many Americans are just plain stupid - and bigots to boot.

Hillary’s Economic Plan: Recommitting to Progressive Policies

If one looks at the history of America in the 20th Century, some of the things that built the middle class were progressive policies, Social Security being a major one, combined with strong unions as well as employers who truly saw their employees as capital and not a class of people to be financially raped and deemed expendable.  Today's Republican Party is at war with all of these essential elements.  In outlining her economic plan, Hillary Clinton has pledged to recommit to the progressive policies that (i) built the middle class and (ii) helped end the gross excesses of the Gilded Age (which the GOP want to restore).  A piece in Salon looks at Clinton's plan.  Here are excerpts:

Heading into Hillary Clintons’ big economic speech on Thursday, there was some concern among progressive groups that the Democratic presidential nominee was going to use the opportunity to nudge her policy agenda towards the center. She’d secured the nomination and no longer had to worry about Bernie Sanders’ challenge from the left, and her campaign was in the middle of a high-profile push to recruit Republican defectors away from GOP nominee Donald Trump, which left open the possibility that she might start moderating for the general election.

Well, Hillary’s speech seems to have put those concerns to rest. At least for the moment. She also put together an effective line of attack against Trump’s economic agenda, separating his populist rhetoric from the reality of his policy proposals.

Clinton hit a number of progressive themes and issues during her remarks in Warren, Michigan: she called for a large boost in infrastructure spending and the creation of an infrastructure bank, she committed to connecting every household in the country to broadband internet by the end of her first term, she offered a strong defense of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, and she backed tuition-free college for everyone except the wealthy.

This is the stuff that activists want to hear, and the progressive groups that were slightly wary of Clinton heading into the speech were pretty ebullient over Hillary’s TPP remarks. “These were Hillary Clinton’s strongest words yet against the TPP,” Progressive Change Campaign Committee co-founder Adam Green said in a statement. “For the first time, Clinton signaled she will personally work to kill the corporate-written TPP if it comes up after the election in an unaccountable lame-duck Congress.” The Roosevelt Institute also lauded Clinton’s speech in a statement released in conjunction with Democracy Corps: “With this economic speech, Secretary Clinton has made this election a choice about whether our economy works for all, not just the few, and that allows progressive economics to win a mandate in November.”

The flip side to Clinton’s renewed embrace of progressive economic policies was her dismantling of Donald Trump’s economic platform. She seized on the Trump plan’s reduction of taxes on so-called “pass-through” entities (calling it “the Trump loophole”) which would allow high-income households to pay far less in taxes on their income than they would under normal circumstances. The pass-through loophole is a massive tax break for the rich, one that would benefit Trump himself, as pass-through entities are “a cornerstone of the Trump Organization.”

Clinton also took a bite out of Trump for proposing a full repeal of the estate tax. As I wrote following Trump’s big economic speech this week, nixing what remains of the estate tax will benefit the super-rich almost exclusively. Hillary made this same point, tying estate-tax repeal to Trump personally and weaving in elements of greed. “If you believe that he’s as wealthy as he says, that alone would save the Trump family $4 billion. It would do nothing for 99.8 percent of Americans. So they’d get a $4 billion tax cut, and 99.8 percent of Americans would get nothing.”

On child care policy, her anti-Trump message was very much the same, given that Trump’s child care plan is a pro-wealthy heap of flaming trash that no one thinks is a good idea. “His plan was panned from the left, from the right, the center, because it transparently is designed for rich people like him,” Clinton said. “He would give wealthy families 30 or 40 cents on the dollar for their nannies, and little or nothing for millions of hardworking families trying to afford child care.”

These are sharp attacks because they strip away the absurd patina of populism that Trump likes to coat himself in with his protectionist ranting and broadsides against foreigners who steal our jobs. Those rhetorical flourishes have little to undergird them, and whenever Trump actually wades into policy details, he invariably ends up churning out proposals that explicitly reserve the lion’s share of benefits for people who do not need them.  

 I continue to be amazed how many Americans fall for the ruse that cuts in the estate tax would help them.  In reality, unless one's estate has a net value of well over $5 million, there is ZERO federal estate liability.  And with proper estate planning, married couples can lessen that impact.  On child care, with two working daughters, I know full well how crushing these costs are and how, unless has a truly well paying job, it can be cheaper to simply not work at all and be a stay at home mother - or father. 

Trump Offers Little New in Economic Policy that Most Aids the Wealthy

Other than wanting to throw out trade treaties that could have a negative boomerang effect on America, Donald Trump offered little new in his much vaunted economic policy speech in Detroit yesterday.  The take away?  That Trump like so many Republicans before him is relying on his low intellect supporters to be induced by hate, racism, and xenophobia to back policies that harm them economically.  Trickle down economics have never worked and after 36 years of broken promises one would think even the Neanderthals of the GOP base would be able to figure this out, but sadly such is not the case.  Both the New York Times and the Washington Post slam Trump's proposals.  Here are highlights from the Post editorial:

Mr. Trump’s economic policy speech to the Detroit Economic Club managed to embrace the worst of traditional Republican doctrine while repudiating the best of it.

Harking back to a nonexistent period “when we were governed by an America First policy,” Mr. Trump blamed the economic collapse of Detroit, and many other untoward economic trends, on trade, specifically free-trade agreements — such as the North American Free Trade Agreement — which the postwar GOP has generally supported, along with many Democrats. Not only would Mr. Trump scrap the proposed Trans-Pacific Partnership with 11 other Pacific Rim nations, he would “renegotiate” NAFTA and “walk away” if Mexico and Canada don’t do what he wants. You may or may not like NAFTA and similar deals; they create winners and losers across the $17 trillion U.S. economy. Even critics must agree that, by now, they are firmly woven into the American economic fabric — and that unraveling them would be profoundly disruptive, perhaps creating “jobs and higher wages” for some, as Mr. Trump promises, but destroying them for many, many others.

On taxes, though, Mr. Trump reverted to GOP orthodoxy, offering cuts for upper-income Americans as a growth elixir. He promised to abolish the estate tax and to reduce the current seven income tax brackets to three, with a top rate of 33 percent. The former idea would benefit a relative handful of super-wealthy families; the latter would blow a gargantuan hole in federal finances unless Mr. Trump also ended deductions and other loopholes, most of which benefit upper-income households disproportionately. Yet he promised to close only one: the “carried interest” deduction whereby Wall Street investors can have certain earnings taxed at the lower capital gains rate rather than as ordinary income. It’s a good idea but would save the Treasury only about$1.8 billion per year.

Mr. Trump called for a new tax break, a deduction for child-care expenses. Though ostensibly for the benefit of hard-pressed families, the proposal will do nothing for the nearly half of American households who don’t owe federal income taxes at all.

There was, in short, little in the way of tangible benefit for the downscale Americans for whom Mr. Trump claims to speak. Possibly to draw attention away from that fact, Mr. Trump framed his proposals as a salve for such injustices as “rebuilding other countries instead of our own” and “resettl[ing] millions of refugees at taxpayer expense” while our infrastructure “fell into disrepair.” Brimming with statistics, larded with footnotes, Monday’s speech was meant to instill “message discipline” in the Trump campaign. But even that message’s most carefully scripted version is held together by smoke, mirrors and scapegoating.

The GOP: Warriors of the Aristocracy

With Hillary Clinton having announced that bringing relief to the the plight of the working and middle classes will be a theme of her presidential campaign, we can expect lip service from GOP candidates that will show feigned concern for average Americans.  Talk, of course, is cheap and talk is all the GOP will actually bring to the table.  Since 1977 - the year I graduated from law school - inflation has been in the neighborhood of 287.3%.  Rest assured, that wages for average Americans has not kept pace.  Even in the legal realm, fees for things such as a real estate settlement have nowhere near kept up with the rate of inflation.  A piece in Salon looks at the true GOP agenda as being warriors for the "aristocracy."  Here are excepts that look at GOP policies rather than GOP lip service:

It’s been quite interesting to see Republicans embrace the notion that wealth inequality (or any inequality) is something to worry their pretty little heads about. Over the winter we heard numerous reports of various GOP luminaries expressing serious concern that average Americans were getting the short end of the stick while the wealthy few reaped all the rewards. Ted Cruz might as well have put on a blond wig and called himself “Elizabeth” when he railed against it after the State of the Union:

“We’re facing right now a divided America when it comes to the economy. It is true that the top 1 percent are doing great under Barack Obama. Today, the top 1 percent earn a higher share of our national income than any year since 1928,”

And here we thought that was supposed to be a good thing. Aren’t they the “job producers”? That’s how weird the GOP’s messaging has gotten lately. Mitt “47 Percent” Romney clutched his very expensive opera-length pearls, wailing that “under President Obama, the rich have gotten richer, income inequality has gotten worse and there are more people in poverty than ever before.” Rand Paul channeled his heretofore unknown inner Bernie Sanders, proclaiming that “income inequality has worsened under this administration. 

This certainly wasn’t something they lost any sleep over before now. . . . this sort of thing is called “issue-trespassing,” where one party attempts to co-opt an advantage of the other by pretending to care about something nobody thinks they care about. In this case, the GOP seemed to be admitting that their reputation as the party of the 1 percent wasn’t helpful to their cause, so they decided to try to shift the blame to President Obama.

[I]t’s hard to see how anyone can possibly believe that the Republican Party, which fetishizes low taxes for the rich above all other priorities, truly cares about wealth inequality; but perhaps this is one of those times when the mere pretense of caring signals that they understand how badly their reputation of callous disregard for everyday Americans’ economic security has hurt them.

[T]his shallow attempt at appearing to give a damn was short-lived. This week the GOP is voting, as they always do, to ensure that the heirs to the Wal-Mart fortune won’t be faced with the terrible responsibility of having to pay taxes on their inheritances. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post pointed out just how successful these protectors of the progeny of the one percenters have been in recent years:

It had long been a conservative ideal, and the essence of the American Dream, to believe that everybody should have an equal shot at success. But in their current bid to end the estate tax, Republicans could create a permanent elite of trust-fund babies. The estate tax was a meaningful check on a permanent aristocracy as recently as 2001 . . . The current exemption of $5.4 million (the current estate tax has an effective rate averaging under 17 percent, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center) does little to prevent a permanent aristocracy from growing — and abolishing it entirely turns democracy into kleptocracy.

This is nothing new, of course. The conservative project has always been fundamentally about aristocracy. Sure, they love to wax on about freedom and liberty but the freedom and liberty they care about is the freedom to attain property and pass it on to their heirs. Everything else is secondary. What’s more interesting is the way they are able to make ordinary people who will never benefit from this scheme — in fact, they will suffer  – agitate for it as if it meant the bread on their own table and the roof over their own heads.

Paul Waldman tackled this phenomenon in a piece for the American Prospect a while back. He concluded that voters didn’t understand that the tax only kicks in for very high amounts, and that most people instinctively think it should be okay to bequeath your fortune to your kids — regardless that the consequences of vastly wealthy people doing this are fundamentally un-American.
Waldman mentioned this silly notion as well:

Americans tend to think that no matter what their current situation, eventually, they’re going to be rich. Most of us are wrong about that, but that’s what we think. It’s practically our patriotic duty to believe it. So most everyone thinks that this tax will apply to their estate upon their death, no matter how modest that estate might be at the moment.

This is one of the main keys to the perpetuation of the aristocratic project: Convincing average people to support “their betters” with the promise that they will themselves benefit. In the old aristocracy, this used to be a simple pledge of fealty to ones noble house, but American conservatives have “democratized” it to make the serfs and peasants believe that they too will be nobles one day if only they agree to allow the rich to keep every last penny of their wealth. It’s a very sweet scam.

Unfortunately for the conservatives, inequality is becoming impossible to ignore and the people are starting to wake up to what is happening. The confusion on the right about how to handle it is a sign that it’s verging out of their control.

 

[S]imply paying lip service to a democratic, egalitarian concern is probably not going to be enough to give them cover when the Republican stereotype of being servants of the rich is so deeply embedded in our political culture. (Thanks Mitt!) Voting for the Paris Hilton tax exemption bill certainly won’t help.

New IRS to Allow All Married Gay Couples To File Jointly; Medicare to Follow Suit

In a welcomed move to many, the Internal Revenue Service has announced new rules that will allow all same-sex married couples to file joint tax returns.  The move will, however, cause additional tax preparation work for same sex couples in anti-gay states like Virginia where apparently, the Virginia Department of Taxation will recognize their marriages and separate returns will be still required.  Just another reminder that in Virginia and other Neanderthal states gays are not equal citizens and are continued to be punished for not conforming to Christofascist religious dogma.   The New Civil Rights Movement looks at the develop.  Here are excerpts:

Treasury Secretary Jack Lew announced that new IRS policy for same-sex couples during a conference call with LGBT leaders today. The IRS will now accept joint returns from married same-sex couples no matter where they live.

According to the Huffington Post, under the new Treasury policy, filing status, employee benefits, IRA contributions, earned income, child tax credits, and income, gift and estate taxes, will apply to same-sex couples in exactly the same manner as they do with heterosexual couples, even if they live in a non-equality state. Unfortunately, the new policy does not extend to civil unions.

The IRS policy change comes on the heels of a similar announcement by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius earlier today. Like the IRS, Medicare will now use a “place of celebration” standard to grant Medicare benefits to same-sex couples.  

That leaves the Social Security Administration the “odd man out”. Currently the SSA is processing claims only from same-sex couples who live in marriage equality states while they review their policy.

Obviously, Social Security survivor benefits represent a huge issue and it is important that the current discriminatory policy be ended as quickly as possible.   Meanwhile, it is wonderful to see the discrimination based on anti-gay animus of the Christofascists steadily being undermined.  No doubt these hate merchants will be shrieking and wailing that the sky is falling merely because they cannot punish us for not buying into their ugly version of Christianity.

2nd Circuit to Hear Arguments in DOMA Case

When not trying to dictate to women what they can do with their own bodies or pressing undocumented immigrants to engage in "self-deportation" the sport du jour for the GOP is to do all in its power to stigmatize and marginalize LGBT Americans and to limit any legal recognition of our relationships.  While the Obama Justice Department has ceased defending the federal Defense of Marriage Act, GOP zealots and Christianist puppets in the House of Representatives have continued to litigate in support of the discriminatory law.  Now, the U. S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit will be hearing the GOP appeal of a lower court ruling that rightly held that DOMA was unconstitutional.  The case involves Edie Windsor (at right in the photo) who was required to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars in estate taxes upon the death of her partner of 44 years thanks to DOMA's provisions.  The Wall Street Journal reports as follows:

NEW YORK — A New York court is set to hear arguments before deciding the constitutionality of the Defense of Marriage Act.   The Manhattan federal appeals court will rule months from now whether Judge Barbara Jones properly declared the 1996 law unconstitutional in June. Jones is among five federal trial judges to strike it down, along with a federal appeals court in Boston.

Jones said a Manhattan woman shouldn't have to pay federal estate taxes after her female spouse of 44 years died in 2009.  Jones said the law's efforts to define marriage intrude on the states' business of regulating domestic relations. The law's supporters say it reaffirms how marriage has always been defined in the United States. The Justice Department says the law was motivated largely by disapproval of gays and lesbians.

Reuters has these additional details on the case:

Six states have legalized same-sex marriage, including New York in 2011. Because of the Defense of Marriage Act, which was passed in 1996, federal law and government programs do not recognize those marriages.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Windsor by the American Civil Liberties Union in federal court in New York. Windsor is a former IBM computer programmer who married Thea Clara Spyer in Toronto, Canada, in 2007. The two were engaged in 1967.

Spyer died in 2009 after a decades-long battle with multiple sclerosis, leaving all of her property to Windsor. Because the marriage was not recognized under federal law, Windsor had to pay more than $363,000 in federal estate taxes, according to her lawsuit.

Windsor's attorneys argue that the act violates the 14th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which guarantees equal protection under the law.  In June, a federal district judge in New York ruled for Windsor,
finding that a central provision of the Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against married same-sex couples.

The Obama administration said last year it considered the law unconstitutional and would no longer defend it. Instead, a group appointed by the Republican majority in the U.S. House of Representatives is defending the law in courts across the country.

The case is Windsor v. USA et al, 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, No. 12-2335.

As I have noted before, there is NO JUSTIFICATION for DOMA - it is an improper codification of religious based bigotry into the nation's laws and needs to be struck down.  As do all of the state anti-gay marriage laws and constitutional amendments which make a mockery of the guarantees of equal protection and religious freedom embodied in the U. S. Constitution.