Tax day

As I'm sure you can guess, I hate tax day. If I expect a refund, I file right away; if I expect to have to pay, I procrastinate to the last possible day. It's my way of depriving the government of as much interest from my money as possible. Even so I hate writing that check.

This year, I had a federal refund, but state liability (a result of living and working in different states). After I finished my state forms, I found an article on CNN that described how tax day has particular ramifications for same-sex couples.

Some Highlights:

Take two couples where one partner has a taxable income of $20,000 and the other makes $40,000. If they can file their federal taxes jointly, the tax bill would be $8,217.50. Filing separately, the combined bill would be $9,032.50 -- more than $800 higher.

Another disparity comes with the federal government's treatment of employer-provided health insurance, which also affects unmarried heterosexual couples. . . [Someone who gets health insurance through the employee benefits of a same-sex partner] is required to count the company's cost of his partner's benefits as additional income for tax purposes.

And

It's not just the higher bills that can be frustrating for same-sex taxpayers; it's also the process of filing taxes, particularly in states that offer some joint benefits to gay couples

. . .

In New Jersey and the other states where same-sex unions are formally recognized, couples can file their state taxes jointly, but they must file their federal tax returns as individuals.

That means doing income calculations twice. Many tax programs such as Intuit's TurboTax are set up to deal with that extra math.

Even so, there are more problems:

[C]ouples with children must decide which partner gets to claim them as dependents for tax purposes on federal returns and returns in states that don't recognize same-sex unions. Similarly, couples who own homes together have to sort out how much of the mortgage interest payments each partner gets to use as a deduction, said Lara Schwartz, the Human Rights Campaign legal director.

I've said it before: Gay marriage is not my issue, but I strenuously support the recognition of same-sex partners as "spouses" by the Department of the Treasury (and frankly any other executive department, but the Treasury and the SSA are by far the biggies). Give us that, and you can call it an Icky-Sex-Pervert Union for all I care.

(Yes, I know--the GOP isn't going to do that for me any time soon, so no need to remind me. Don't forget that the Democratic controlled Congress hasn't attempted to amend the tax code in our favor either.)

Condi's out

No, not our kind of out.

For someone who had fairly little enthusiasm about the primaries, I am unusually titillated about the Republican VP spot. Anyway, despite reports that Condi Rice was angling for the number 2 position, McCain has said that he was oblivious to any such angling, and Condi said she has no interest in elected office whatsoever. She wants to return to Stanford.

I’m glad.

Don’t get me wrong, I like Condi. Even if you hate her politically, there is much to admire about her. Growing up in the Jim Crow South, she graduated from high school at 16 and went to the University of Denver (not Harvard, but don’t be a hater). She graduated Phi Beta Kappa at age 19. She then worked at the State Department during the Carter Administration. After getting her PhD in international studies, she became a prominent academic and the Provost of Stanford University. Outside of the ivory tower, she is an accomplished pianist and is a huge NFL fan. She is usually considered the most intelligent and poised (if gap toothed) member of the Administration. Plus she can crush your head.

Still I don’t want to see her on a ticket.

She would add little and subtract much. She adds little because she’s a foreign policy/national security specialist. Mac considers that his strong suit. Choosing a foreign policy oriented running mate would send the signal that the McCain administration would care little about the domestic issues that seem to be very important to voters this election. Not a winning strategy. Similarly, she’s not especially conservative socially, another weakness (this time in the eyes of his own party rather than the general electorate) of McCain himself. Finally, some might think a black woman on the ticket would diffuse or even overtake the diversity vote that either Democrat can expect. An attempt to usurp the diversity vote is likely to backfire for Republicans who criticize affirmative actions by claiming to put forth candidates on the basis of qualifications rather than minority status.

What does she subtract? Mostly one thing, but it’s a big one thing: she is VERY closely identified with the Bush Administration. Support for the war notwithstanding, Mac has (wisely) made attempts to distance himself from the current Republican Administration.

So whom should Mac choose? Well, I’m only 25, so it'll probably have to be someone else :) He or she (whom am I kidding? He) should have domestic issue gravitas, most importantly economic expertise, as that is McCain’s admitted weak point. Another asset in a race between a bunch of senators is executive experience—so I’d choose a governor. Finally, I’d choose someone who will placate the right wing screamers who only begrudgingly support McCain. This last criterion is a dangerous one, though. McCain has to find someone closer to the wingnuts than he is, but not so close as to lose the moderates and independents that McCain can draw better than any other Republican.

Sounds like Mitt. At least it doesn’t sound like the Huckster. Barely.

deleted post.

I know it's against blogging law, but I deleted a post. If memory serves, I have only deleted one other post, and that was for someone else's privacy. I know it probably showed up in some readers, and that's fine, but I thought I should give something of an explanation.

It was supposed to be a "I'm not bitter, I'm empowered because I have an independent personality" kind of thing, but the more I looked it over the more I thought it didn't quite work. It may have implied things inconsistent with some of what I have said before. I think I was really writing about my dissatisfaction with my current relationship, and it was a way of venting. I wrote it, posted it, and then I was all vented. At that point, no need to keep it up.

Anyway, deal with it.

Some good(ish) news and a book

I got a little too worked up a little too early. The latest Reuters-Zogby Poll put Clinton ahead of Obama, and McCain beating both of them. Gallup has similar results, though McCain's lead there is statistically significant over Obama but not Clinton.

Does this mean the tide is turning? Not really. It just reminds me that it is still far too early to call the race. I need to think positively--I've been reading too much of the morose Andrew Sullivan

New book: I bought Grover Norquist's Book Leave Us Alone: Getting the Government's Hands Off Our Money, Our Guns, Our Lives. He describes gay Republicans thusly:

Gay Americans who simply want to be left alone recognize that the modern center-right movement has no agenda to outlaw homosexuality or use the power of the state to tax or attack gays. Gay Americans who are also homeowners, businessmen, shareholders, gun owners or men and women of faith will find the modern left ready, willing and able to tax, regulate and attack them--not as gays--but as income earners, property owners, gun owners, etc.

That nicely complements my view: why does being gay have to change my views on unrelated issues like guns, taxes, national security, or abortion. Why does gay marriage, to which I am personally indifferent, (or even civil unions, which I support but much of the gay othrodoxy decries as insufficent) have to become my top priority litmus test issue?

Why I'm becoming an Alcoholic

If I thought Republicans could regain at least one chamber of congress, I'd be able to just roll my eyes and go along for the ride.

Back in 2002 when Republicans regained the senate and suddenly controlled both chambers as well as the White House a Republican Professor (There about about as many of those as there are Republican gays--eleven) said to me "I voted for all Republicans, but I am a little worried that they actually won everything. I don't want to live in a one party state--I don't want to be in Argentina." He was exaggerating for sure, and at the time I laughed him off. I have since decided, however, that one of the reasons Republicans lost their way on limited government is that they had no opposition. Human nature is to exercise power once you have it, and without any checks Republicans become the same big government wastrels we accuse Democrats of being.

But with both the legislature and the executive branches controlled by the party that doesn't even pay lip service to limited government, I'm bracing for disaster. I'm getting ready for mandatory health care I don't want paid for by my higher taxes. As a professional, I'll be one of the "wicked rich," despite the fact that my graduate school loan payments will eat up every extra dollar I make over that of others my age. Even with all this "fiscal discipline" (which to Democrats means higher taxes) the looming social security catastrophe will continue to be ignored. Corporations will be squeezed by even higher corporate taxes and more regulation, making it harder for them to employ me and other middle class folks, let alone less skilled employees. Then again, the less skilled employees will be all right because they have unions who will see renewed power to keep the wages of their members high by creating barriers to entry (and thus unemployment). There will be a withdrawal from Iraq (whether we should have gone in the first place is no longer the debate--at this point, the U.S., unlike a Catholic teenager, should not just pull out) and a weakening of our national defenses. Oh, and I'll bet dollars to doughnuts that they will make no real progress on gay issues either.

Well, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

Never thought I'd Say This

I'm pulling for Clinton.

Certainly one reason is that she is more beatable than B. Hussein Obama, but frankly I am starting to get pessimistic at any Republican winning the White House. The economy is likely to be the primary issue of the election, but McCain's focus is on foreign policy. McCain's economic policies (free trade, tax cuts coupled with spending limits, deregulation) are all great, but they aren't sexy. They won't quickly fix anything. We (by which I mean Americans--I am using the nontraditional meaning of "we" that doesn't include me) want our government to meddle right now, to give us money we haven't earned by taking it from rich people we don't like anyway. Never mind that we bought houses we couldn't afford (or conversely made unnecessarily risky loans--both sides of the transaction want bailouts, and neither deserve them).

So why am I pulling for Clinton over Obama--didn't I just say here that there is little difference between the two? A few Reasons:

First, she's beatable...if not in 2008, then in 2012.
Second, she's highly criticizable until then.
Third, her policies are, unexpectedly, like 10% less socialist than Obama. Right now, I'll take whatever crumbs I can get.

Don't get me wrong. I'll campaign and vote for McCain, and I have already given him money. I'm just afraid I'll need a lot of wine over the next four and a half years.

Maybe I can borrow a little vino from those of you who felt the same way for the last 8.

I guess I just don't get it.

My politics puzzle some and anger others. Apparently I am some sort of Uncle Tom's Log Cabin Republican. As a gay man, I guess I am required by some contract I do not remember signing to focus the entirety of my political energy towards the legalization of gay marriage. I am not allowed to consider fiscal policy, foreign policy, or any other policy above gay marriage. Excuse me for thinking that terrorism and the social security crisis are a little more important than legalizing something I don't really need anyway.