Right-wing takeover: HRC to support privatizing Social Security

[Brian_Expat]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/09/national/09gays.html?ei=5094&en=eb98fb148fb10f1a&hp=&ex=1102568400&adxnnl=1&oref=login&partner=homepage&adxnnlx=1102594232-JpKMElVxRySdj8hzhJ013w

One (HRC) official said the group would consider supporting President Bush's efforts to privatize Social Security partly in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the program.

So HRC has fired its highly effective leader Cheryl Jacques because a Republican donor threatened to withhold $1 million if she wasn't. He was enraged that she ran a campaign against Bush that was aggressive.

The new HETEROSEXUAL chairman, plus his co-chair, the former head of the RIAA (who sued music downloaders) are planning to "reach out" to Republicans be de-emphasizing gay marriage and partnership rights, and moving instead towards issues like tax cuts and privatizing social security.

We've gotta face the facts, folks, the Republicans have just taken over the largest gay lobby group in America. And they're going to use it to rubber-stamp their anti-gay stuff by saying "see, the HRC think it's A-OK!"

[terrya]

1. That's complete and utter bullshit. They're not getting another dime..

from me.

My mom, who is on social security and has no other means of support, is scared about this privatization of social security. This privatization stuff is part of an agenda, folks. There are people in this administration who want to ABOLISH Social Security altogether. And I'm firmly convinced that privitazation is the first step.

And a straight head of the HRC? I truthfully haven't been following this as closely as I should...I only saw the announcment of Cheryl Jacques leaving. That's fucking inexcusible.

Not one more dime for these people. It's time to consider forming another organization that ISN'T controlled by Republicans.

[The Backlash Cometh]

3. What I haven't been able to figure out is why the Republican

leadership would want to bankrupt America? They're bankrupting America and Americans. But why? What agenda do they see in the future where starving a population would benefit them?

The only one that I see that fits into this Administration's present agenda is continual war.

[WyLoochka]

5. They don't learn from history.

Even recent history escapes them. I think the corporatists believe they don't need to depend on an American middle class any longer in order to themselves thrive. After all, there are those "emerging markets" to extort. Plenty of filthy lucre to be had, even if Americans are starving in the streets.

But Cheney's plan for a sustained 100 years of war aimed at coercing "emerging markets" into submission to corporatist will, completely fails to take into consideration that it takes a wealthy population to sustain a military that is on the offensive with the goal of subjugating all the other 190 sovereign countries to centralized corporate rule.

Remember the biggest contributor to the collapse of the USSR? It was way too expensive to sustain. The "war" will grind to a halt and the Empire's facade will crumble when they've picked our pockets clean, destroyed the middle class and left the majority of us in abject poverty.

It's all so predictable and avoidable. Thanks to 59 million very stupid people - we have years of wide scale economic suffering ahead of us while all this plays out.

[Q3JR4]

8. You bankrupt America,

all the social programs have to be cut. Very Republican if you ask me.

[The Backlash Cometh]

9. It's a position that doesn't hold up.

Social programs put money into the hands of people that energize our consumer base. It also cuts down on necessary services such as criminal justice services when people are hungry enough to get disconnected from society and do criminal things.

[Salluc]

30. Privatizing Social Security Benefits Bush Supporters

This is really a short-term, short-sighted strategy that does dramatically and successfully benefit a pile of Bush contributors. My partner sent me a site (which I can't recall at the moment) that allowed you to check out the political contributions of a slew of America's largest corporate political contributors. While New York's big banks were heavily Democratic in their contributions, our brokerage houses were enormous Republican contributors.

And who will benefit from privatizing social security? Immediately, it will be two groups of people. Remember that hundreds of billions of dollars will begin pouring into the stock market. Each stock purchase will have to pass across a broker's desk creating millions and millions of dollars in new commissions for the industry's Merrill Lynches.

The other group that will quickly benefit will be options rich corporate executives. The new inflow of money will push stock prices through the roof (completely driving out foreign investors) allowing execs to cash in their extant options for exorbitant profit taking.

All in all, it's really quite a brilliant strategy if you are, as always, fanatically determined to take money away from the poor/ working/middle classes and give it to the wealthiest 1%.

Well done, asshole!

[Name removed]

2. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WyLoochka]

4. What ? Make a deal to

sell out entirely on tax cuts and Social Security thus, bringing down immense economic harm onto civil society across all gender, racial, age and ethnic lines in exchange for - NOTHING???

This is a deal that shouldn't be pondered for a nanosecond, even if they were going to receive something in return.

HRC shoulda' told the million dollar fascist repuke extortionist to get lost. Instead, they completely surrendered without even a whimper, let alone a fight, for a measly million bucks just so they can continue to take up space in DC and pay the rent, but be entirely useless to their own constituency? And worse - aid and abet the enemy as it resurrects feudalism?

This is an outrageous, stupid and totally unnecessary surrender. Support for HRC should collapse overnight, but I doubt that many will even learn of the dirty details of this hostile takeover which was facilitated by a few strategically wrong headed, wimpy, white flag capitulators.

Divide - that's the repuke method. Well they have succeeded in killing the support I would otherwise have given to HRC. Giant step backwards in every way. Disgusting.

[GodlessBiker]

6. This atrocity was foreshadowed by HRC's endorsement of D'Amato.

[MinneapolisMatt]

7. You have got to be kidding me!

This is just sick news.

The HRC in Minneapolis meets at my church, and I'm going to give them a piece of my mind next time I see them.

FUCK THEM. Sorry to be profane, but what the hell are we going to have left in this fucking country? GRRR.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

10. its what happens when you put rich people in charge

they dont care about poor gay people...so long as rich white gay men can get marrried...

[renaissanceguy]

11. If this is true

it does not suprise me. The HRC has become nothing but an elitist, black-tie-dinner, bullshit organization that has done nothing but pat itself on the back.

We should, instead, contribute to other LGBT organizations. Here in Illinois, we have Equality Illinois, and they take to the streets and protest. It's great.

Fuck HRC. We don't need them. Let them become another chapter of Log Cabin, for all I care.


--------------------------------
Kerry REALLY won Ohio and the election. Buy Recount, anti-Bush, and liberal stuff at www.cafepress.com/liberalissues

[livinginphotographs]

12. Well, that's it.

First it was firing Cheryl Jacques to bring on anti-filesharing Nazi Hilary Rosen, and now this.

Fuck it. The sticker comes off the car today and no more money from me.

[livinginphotographs]

13. How do I go about withdrawing my monthly donation to them?

I give them $10 a month, and I've looked all over the website, and can't find where to cancel it. I'm sure if I just email them, it'll take an eternity to reply.

This has just gone too far for me to keep giving them money. Any help would be appreciated.

[GodlessBiker]

14. Call them. Then call your credit card company.

[livinginphotographs]

15. I shot them an email, and an auto-reply came back with a ph#.

I'll have to do it after work, because that conversation is not one I want to have from my cubicle, but will do so tonight.

[foreigncorrespondent]

16. Well...

...it is high time the LGBT community banned together and gave HRC the big kiss off.

Our community needs to begin fighting for ourselves because the more these organizations that are there to protect us get rich the more they take the money and fuck us without so much as a kiss. I dunno guys, I'm not about to belittle myself into becoming a right wing whore to be fucked when they say so.

We need to form a true grassroots organization that will work towards the greater good for the community. Not that that will do any good during the next four years, but hell, it is a good time to start.

[Bouncy Ball]

17. DAMN that pisses me off.

I JUST joined HRC on November 3. Just got the sticker in the mail and was all set to put it on my car and even wanted to order checks from them with the HRC symbol on them.

Screw that. If this is what they are about, forget it.

Does anyone have any ideas for other organizations I can join to support GLBT rights? I'm straight, but it's one thing I fight the hardest for and this really super pisses me off.

Like THAT'S what we needed.

I already am a member of PFLAG. Is there anything else? Maybe state-based? I'm in Texas.

[Maat]

18. I'm with you, Bouncy Ball.

I'm a straight 46-year-old mom who joined to support Human Rights in the past month.

No, the sticker is not going on the car. And not one more dime from me.

I think that I will join PFLAG.

Any other recommendations?

[Cornus]

19. Here are two...

...that I support:

http://www.glaad.org/

http://www.thetaskforce.org/

[readmoreoften]

29. There was a group called Queer Fist in NYC during the RNC

Young, visible, and anti-HRC. Many were arrested and thrown in Pier 57 (with caustic waste everywhere) for staging a "Kiss-in" on the steps of the NY public library. They're a little too radical for most people, because they oppose marriage (as 'marriage to the state') and are more concerned with discrimination on the basis of gender presentation (trans people and 'people who look gay'). Their major concern is workplace rights, hospital visitation to be left up to the individual not the institution, and an end to discrimination of gender variant people in shelters and prisons and the foster care system.

I would like to see a coming together of radicals and moderate GLBTers. It's not like there is no connection between the needs of poor transgendered street kids kicked out by their parents and the established G&L couple who want to adopt. It's the same discrimination holding us all back.

[jonnyblitz]

20. they always seemed a bit too "centrist" for me anyways

so this is no surprise to me. they are the DLC of the gay movement. fuck them.

[justin899]

21. Today's WP Has An Interesting Article On NGLTF's Response to This

Gay Activists Refuse to Bargain Away Rights

Dozens of prominent advocates for gay rights sent a letter to every member of Congress yesterday stating that they would reject any plan to bargain for equal rights, and specifically decried a report that the Human Rights Campaign, the nation's largest gay political organization, was planning to "moderate" its positions and would possibly support President Bush's plan to create private Social Security accounts.

The letter, titled "Where We Stand," was released by the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force (NGLTF) in response to an article in yesterday's New York Times. The article quoted officials from the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) as saying that, in light of defeats for gay rights in the Nov. 2 election (including the bans on same-sex marriage passed in 11 states), the organization decided to place less emphasis on same-sex marriage and more on "strengthening personal relationships." One HRC official was paraphrased as saying that the group would consider supporting Bush's efforts to partially privatize Social Security in exchange for the right of gay partners to receive benefits under the federal retirement program.

The letter, signed by more than 30 gay rights leaders, states: "The New York Times today reported that some in the LGBT community are ready to pull back on our struggle for freedom to make everyone more comfortable politically, or willing to bargain away the rights of others to make a deal for themselves. Specifically, the notion was advanced that we could make gains at the expense of senior citizens by privatizing Social Security. . . .

Full Article Here.

[TaleWgnDg]

22. Am searching for that ltr released by NGLTF . . .

google doesn't pull it up yet.

Anyone pull up this NGLTF released letter signed by "30 gay rights leaders" and "sent to every member of congress?" If so, please let me know . . . by DU private message. Thanks.

One last thing. I really disagree with jumping to conclusions about the HRC. Despite how it may look. Let's wait awhile and see what happens before folks across America dump HRC for what it is they are alleged to have done or are doing. Why dump an organization before it has a chance to reiterate their position PUBLICLY? Besides its a huge organization and may be salvageable. IMHO, tis better to patiently wait it out.


.

[renaissanceguy]

23. Have you ever gone to one of their meetings?

They're nothing but a bunch of elitists who won't listen to a damn thing you say. They don't care about rights--they are all about raising money.

[TaleWgnDg]

24. I haven't touched base, yet, w/ Cheryl Jacques but I fully

intend to do so. And I doubt that I will be privy to information that could be repeated.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A23988-2004Dec1.html

[Brian_Expat]

27. Make sure to tell her we stand by her n/t

[GodlessBiker]

26. A 10-25% drop in contributions would be a nice kick in the ass to them.

I've moved over to supporting service-oriented organizations, mostly helping gay youth: The Hetrick-Martin Institutue, Callen-Lorde, The Point Foundation, and others.

[Maven]

31. renaissance guy is right.

My position on HRC used to be much like that of TaleWgnDg--"I don't like everything they do, but they have a lot of resources to put toward good causes." That is, until I actually got involved in the organization. Then you realize that HRC has become like every other bloated political organization--ultimately, it has no goal except its own survival and aggrandizement. All they do is put on one $1000/plate fundraiser after another; they have no interest in the problems or opinions of anyone except the elite within our community. I actually had one of the team coordinators ask me once how we could attract other people my age (early 20s) to the organization. I almost laughed in his face.

Seriously, this latest move doesn't come as a big surprise to me or to anyone else familiar with the organization. I hope they lose enough support (read: $) over this to make them think twice about their new "strategy."

[Misunderestimator]

25. I hereby despise the HRC, and remove all future support...

Can I get my money back since they misrepresented themselves to me? I REFUSE to give money to a front-organization of the Log Cabin Republicans... this is apparently what they have become. A heterosexual male co-chairman indeed... fucking idiots.

[ibegurpard]

28. Fuck that!

I'm not selling out everyone else in this country just so I can "get mine."
That's the greedy Republican way of thinking that destroys everything it touches.
Fuckers!

[donco6]

32. I used to give them money

But not for some time. I saw this direction emerging several years ago. I used to go to the black tie affairs, raised money for tables, blah blah. I concur with the fellow who called them "elitist". That's what they've become.

I now support the Colorado Legal Initiatives Project CLIP. They seem to do more good anyway.

[TaleWgnDg]

33. It's not a "right wing take-over" . . .

For an update re Human Rights Commission (HRC), Cheryl Jacques' resignation as head of the HRC, and what's behind the curtain . . . see:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=221x2391




.

[davidinalameda]

34. highly effective?

those are two words I would never think to describe Cheryl Jacques