Left Center Left

To follow up on my post yesterday, I see that HRC has a press release up countering the New York Times’ claim that the organization is considering supporting privatization as part of a political barter and larger moderation strategy. HRC responds,

For example, regarding Social Security, the Congress will be considering Social Security reform. The debates will be both substantive and partisan. HRC intends to use that debate to promote to the country the fact that GLBT people do not have a majority of the social security benefits enjoyed by most Americans right now if we cannot designate a beneficiary to the monies we have earned. We will not be used as a partisan tool and have taken no position to support privatization. Rather we will focus on the need for equality.

I can believe that the Times got it wrong. Analysis pieces of this sort have the difficult task of looking behind the scenes of organizations that by nature have to have a public face very different than the internal decisionmaking going on. Misreprentation or overinterpretation can easily occur. By the same token, since political lobby groups do have a difference between public and private statements, the HRC press release can’t be taken at face value either. In sum, I don’t know where the truth lies on this one. Still, in case the group is considering such a barter, I wrote them a letter today urging them from such a tactic. I normally don’t spend much energy on political group flacking, but this issue has struck a nerve. The body of the letter is reproduced below the fold if you care to read.

Dear Sir or Madam:

After reading the New York Times analysis article (dated Dec. 9) on the Human Rights Campaign’s current discussions of political strategy, I was maddened and disheartened to read that the HRC may be considering bartering support for President Bush’s privatization plan for Social Security in exchange for acknowledgement of gay and lesbian partners in any new program. I realize that news articles like this often mislead or extrapolate from the truth, or may take an idea tossed out in brainstorming sessions as a token of an organization’s strategy. The press release on your website suggests as much. Then again, I know that press releases are as much about your positioning as a nonpartisan lobby group as anything else.

So if there is any truth to the Times piece, I urge the Campaign to reconsider. There are many reasons for keeping Social Security intact and for resisting privatization. Privatization would entail huge transition costs, a budget liability that would only add to current debt load. Moreover, the nature of the “crisis” is unclear: most any economic scenario that would produce growth paltry enough to lead to revenue shortfall for Social Security (say, 1.8% annual growth in GDP) would also fail to generate the high stock market returns needed to make privatization a fix (proponents assume annual real returns as high as 6 to 7%). But more than the policy specifics then, the privatization plan ignores the contributions of the average worker, whose payroll taxes have been paying off Treasury debt since the 1980s, and saddles her or him with the risk of securities investment and the burden of future tax payments and/or benefit reduction.

I don’t expect the Human Rights Campaign to weigh in on these issues. But were it to support Social Security privatization, it would be doing just that, stepping outside of its initial purview of a group focused solely on equality. I’m not even sure it would be a good tactic politically; already conservatives have successfully tapped into class resentment against a caricature of gay men and lesbians as selfish professionals. The last thing we need is an organization that — for all its universal fight for equality — does draw a large part of its support from professionals be seen on the side of those with sizeable 401(k)s against those who do not.

Over the last year, living in Massachusetts during the ushering in of gay marriage, I have witnessed a historic and awe-inspiring transformation of political consciousness on the part of gay men and lesbians and their allies. I have donated money, volunteered at fundraisers, religiously attended political rallies, and written and called my legislative representatives. My friends have put forth even more of their heart and soul for the struggle to change minds and win political support. I will continue to be part of the movement for gay equality. All I ask is that the HRC not put me in the position of having to choose for my own equal rights under the law and a basic fairness for workers in this country. Because I already know whose side I’ll take.

Sincerely,

Chris Cagle