(Image and caption on Michelle Malkin’s website. Nice, huh?)
While extreme Right Wing bigot and self-hating demagogue Michelle Malkin complains about her parenting responsibilities, tweeting, “I am my kids’ summer day camp chauffeur. My minivan needs a meter. 😉,” her guest blogger Doug Powers penned this nasty piece of homophobic, right-wing ridiculousness: “Google to Pay Heterosexuals Less Than Homosexuals.”
Yes, that’s right. America’s Right Wing, ever trolling to find ways to “prove” they are victims and the unfairly-treated majority, thinks now that because same-sex couples, who for, well, forever, have had to pay over a lifetime thousands upon thousands of dollars more in taxes than their opposite-sex married counterparts, are getting a “break” from beneficent corporations like Google, that it’s tantamount to discrimination against straights.
Yes, evidently, straights are being discriminated against because they pay lower taxes.
Google announced they are going to make up the difference in the taxes their same-sex coupled employees are legally forced to pay the government on the cost of their health care insurance that is unfairly taxed, in a manner different than if they were a legally-married opposite sex couple, whose marriage is recognized by the federal government, and therefore able to take advantage of the 1138 benefits the federal government offers opposite-sex married couples that same-sex couples are legally unable to access.
Here’s Powers’ “logic.”
If that doesnâ€™t seem like discrimination, letâ€™s flip it on its ear: I own a company that employs both caucasians and minorities. I put out a memo announcing that Iâ€™ve discovered that my white employees are paying higher property taxes, so in order to make it â€œfairâ€ to everyone, Iâ€™m going to start paying white employees more so they can cover their extra property taxes.
Well, Mr. Powers, if the government were creating laws specifically designed to make white employees pay more in property taxes than minorities, and those property taxes had something to do with the benefits you as an employer gave your employees, then it wouldn’t be discrimination.
But you like to, as conservatives often do, see the world as a zero-sum game, and therefore have to exclude facts that render your argument, well, ridiculous.
Powers links to an MSNBC piece which states,
“Under federal law, employer-provided health benefits for domestic partners are counted as taxable income, if the partner is not considered a dependent, the newspaper said, noting that the tax owed is based on the value of the partnerâ€™s coverage paid by the employer.”
“Citing a study, the Times said employees with domestic partners will pay about $1,069 more a year in taxes than a married employee with the same coverage. Google will essentially cover those costs, the newspaper said, putting same-sex couples on an even footing with heterosexual employees whose spouses and families receive health benefits.”
In a typically conservative rush-to-judgment, Powers obviously failed to ever read the ground-breaking New York Times piece from last fall, “The High Price of Being a Gay Couple.”
The Times piece says, “Most large employers do not provide coverage for same-sex partners, so one partner may need to provide coverage. But even domestic partner coverage has a cost, because it is counted as taxable income.”
Let me repeat that: Because it is counted as taxable income.
The Times piece also lists how much more same-sex couples, because we cannot marry and have our marriages recognized by the federal government, are forced to pay.
For example, according to the piece, a same-sex couple over the course of their lifetime together could pay up to $211,993 more than a married opposite-sex couple in health insurance, and $88,500 more than a married opposite-sex couple in social security.
So the fact that Google wants to “pick up the tab” for government taxes which are unfair, is not, as Powers says, “discrimination.” It’s a sign of a good employer.
Powers also, stupidly writes,
“Since itâ€™s illegal to ask an employee (or interviewee) to divulge his or her sexual preference, how exactly is Google finding out whoâ€™s straight and whoâ€™s gay to they know who to pay more?”
Well Mr. Powers, I guess you’ve never worked for a corporation. To receive benefits as a same-sex couple you actually in most companies have to sign a document affirming your relationship status. It’s not illegal for the company to ask you to do that so you can receive benefits they do not legally have to provide. It may be illegal to ask that question in an interview but not of an employee.
Again, facts, logic, and common sense are just too high a bar for conservatives to reach.
As I wrote last year about the Times piece,”only slightly” does it mention the emotional costs of being in a same-sex couple, because of the government’s and society’s mandate of making us second-class citizens.
A high price to pay, indeed, although infinitely worth it, because I know the ground we’re breaking will help the next generation. Something conservatives like Michelle Malkin and Doug Powers only claim to care about.
Via “Are you Freaking Stupid?“:
“Straight people will get paid less because they could get married and get a tax cut. How wonderful. And someone tell me, would it be considered discriminatory if I paid straight people more because they are less likely to get HIV? Could I pay straight people more because married straight couples tend to live longer and healthier?
Liberals hate discrimination. As long as you define â€œdiscriminationâ€ as â€œnot giving special benefits to the groups they likeâ€.
Welcome to the stupid hatefest spawned by the Michelle Malkin brand of homophobia and ignorance.
The somersaults anyone with half a brain could do on that logic is astounding.
What more can I say?
Enjoy this piece?
… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.
NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.
Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.
Acting Speaker McHenry Did Not Have Authority to Evict Pelosi Says Top Rules Committee Democrat
U.S. Rep. Patrick McHenry (R-NC), Kevin McCarthy’s hand-picked temporary successor and acting Speaker, operated outside of carefully crafted House rules when he evicted Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi and U.S. Rep. Steny Hoyer, the former Democratic Majority Leader, from their Capitol Hill offices just hours after Republicans ousted McCarthy as Speaker.
That’s according to the top Democrat on the powerful House Rules Committee, Ranking Member Jim McGovern (D-MA), who previously served as the Chair of the Rules Committee. He says the “Speaker pro tempore” has one job only: help elect a new Speaker of the House.
“I want to clear up some confusion,” McGovern wrote late Wednesday afternoon.
“As an unelected acting Speaker pro tempore, @PatrickMcHenry’s job is to guide the House toward the election of a new Speaker. That’s it.”
“His power is constrained by the plain text of Rule 1, Clause 8 of the Rules of the House,” said McGovern.
Rep. McGovern said he is “alarmed” by McHenry’s order evicting Pelosi and Hoyer.
“Given the plain text of the rule, I don’t think he has that power,” McGovern added.
McGovern further explained, “The rule says he can only exercise as much authority as is ‘necessary and appropriate’ towards the end of electing a Speaker. The Rules Committee narrowly described this rule in 2004: an acting Speaker pro tempore serves ‘for the sole purpose of electing a new Speaker.'”
“These rules were put into place after 9/11 to ensure continuity of government & quick election of a new Speaker in an emergency. Not to provide for a short-term Speaker due to Republican dysfunction,” concluded McGovern, who has served in Congress since 1997.
‘My Job Is Not to Put Pool Noodles Around Hard Corners for Republicans’: AOC Blasts Critics Over McCarthy Vote
U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) blasted critics across the political spectrum who are angered House Democrats did not vote to keep Kevin McCarthy as Speaker, after Republicans ousted him on Tuesday.
“Contrary to how McCarthy’s defenders are behaving, men failing up is not a Constitutionally protected right,” Ocasio-Cortez said on social media. “The man made risky decisions and faced the natural consequences of them. I am not his mom, and my job is not to put pool noodles around hard corners for Republicans.”
AOC also blasted 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Andrew Yang, who is now a former Democrat, after he criticized Democrats on CNN.
“Why did Dems vote along party lines to oust Kevin McCarthy? Not because they thought it was good for the country but because that’s what they were told to do,” Yang said on social media when posting his remarks.
“Yes,” Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez responded, “because strengthening someone who voted to overturn the election, held the entire US economy hostage, launched a baseless impeachment inquiry without a vote, and refuses to honor his word is what is in the best interest of this country.”
“Do some of you hear yourselves?” she asked rhetorically.
Tuesday night she also defended Democrats for not, as some have put it, “saving” McCarthy.
“Does anyone believe for one minute that McCarthy would help elect a Dem speaker ‘for the institution’?” she asked. “McCarthy’s hubris is a theme. He loudly stated he wouldn’t negotiate w/Dems, called virtually none, trashed those who helped w/CR, and then expected Dem votes for free?”
Karine Jean-Pierre Schools Peter Doocy for Asking if White House Is ‘Loving’ GOP House Chaos
In the middle of an interview with U.S Senator John Kennedy, Fox News interrupted the Louisiana Republican for some “breaking news,” as the right wing cable network’s Peter Doocy began to ask White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre about the chaos far-right wing Republicans caused by ousting Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday.
“All right. Senator, thank you for joining us. We got a little bit of breaking news here. We got to jump back to the briefing. Our Peter Doocy is questioning the Press Secretary,” John Roberts told viewers as the camera cut to the White House Press Briefing Room.
“Is any part of the West Wing here, just loving the fact that Republicans don’t appear to be able to govern the one part of the government that they actually control?” Doocy asked.
“Nobody’s ‘loving’ anything when it’s when we’re not when we’re not able to deliver for the American people. Nobody’s loving that,” Jean-Pierre replied, as she explained to Doocy what the White House believes is actually important.
“It is important for Congress to work, not for us, but on behalf of the American people. It is important to make sure that we meet the challenges of the American people. That’s what’s important. What we saw, you heard from the President, what we saw on Saturday should have never have happened, but we’re glad that a deal was made. We’re glad that we’re not in a shutdown. But House Republicans should have never gotten us that far.”
Jean-Pierre went on to tell Doocy that since Republicans “are the majority in the House, they can fix this.”
“They’re creating the chaos. That is not helpful to the American people.”
“That’s why you saw the President today talk about student debt relief, and talk about what else he’s doing to make sure that we’re giving a little bit of breathing room to the American people. That’s why you heard from the President yesterday talking about or our announcement, talking about how we’re continuing to beat Big Pharma so we can lower prescription drug costs for the American people. That’s what the President cares about. That’s what he wants to see – what can we continue to do to help Americans as they face really tough challenges? So this is not, we’re not loving it. It is not helpful to any any American across the country.”
Doocy, went on to ask if “anybody in the West Wing has heard anybody talking about the possibility of ‘Speaker Trump.'”
Watch below or at this link.
Fox News cuts off interview with senator for “breaking news,” which is Peter Doocy asking KJP the following questions:
– is the West Wing “loving the fact” that the GOP doesn’t appear able to govern the House?
– are you guys talking about a possible Speaker Trump? pic.twitter.com/Csr2E2CYI5
— Justin Baragona (@justinbaragona) October 4, 2023
- News1 day ago
Pelosi Delivers Brutal Response After McCarthy’s Acting Replacement Orders Her to Vacate Her Office Immediately
- News2 days ago
‘Part of the Authoritarian Playbook’: Trump’s Courthouse Rant Slammed by Fascism Scholars
- RIGHT WING EXTREMISM2 days ago
‘Sodom and Gomorrah’: ND Republican Unleashes Anti-LGBTQ Christian Nationalist Rant Calling for ‘Christ Is King’ Laws
- News2 days ago
Trump Has Now ‘Crossed the Line Into Criminal Threats’: Top Legal Scholar
- News14 hours ago
Pelosi Strikes Back After New House GOP Leadership, in Act of ‘Revenge’ Immediately Targets Top Democrats
- News1 day ago
‘Fool or a Liar’: GOP Knives Out for ‘A–hole’ Matt Gaetz as Vote to Oust McCarthy Appears Likely to Succeed
- News1 day ago
‘Radical Left Marxists’: Trump Launches Attack Hours After Judge Imposes Gag Order
- News1 day ago
McCarthy Ousted as Speaker in Historic First as Republicans Vow Vengeance Against Gaetz: ‘Kiss My A–’