Congratulations! It's a... net gain?
At the request of Rep. Steve Chabot (R-OH), the Congressional Budget Office prepared an analysis of the budgetary impact of federal recognition of same-sex marriage. The report request was spurred by same-sex marriage opponents who presumed that the budgetary impact of federal recognition would tilt in their favor.
The Congressional Budget Office responded today with figures that Chabot probably didn't expect. The bottom line: federal recognition of same-sex marriages would have a negligible budgetary impact. If anything, gay marriage would produce a net gain of $1 billion. (In federal budget terms, negligible.)
Activists on both sides of the aisle have all-but-accepted that gay marriage would have a detrimental impact on the budget. Just six months ago, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) testified
before Chabot's Subcommittee on the Constitution, quoting previous CBO cost estimates to make the case against same-sex marriage. The Washington Times reported one month ago that "government officials say [the federal cost of gay marriage] would be high," and quoted Bachus' concerns that the recognition would "break the bank."
Even the Human Rights Campaign didn't have a strong answer to the question, asserting on their website that the effects on the budget would be negligible because the cost to extend benefits would be offset by lessening gay families' dependence on welfare benefits and food stamps. Right.
The report, it seems, has not provided gay marriage opponents with the ammunition they had hoped to help their efforts. Plus, considering they've extrapolated results from previous CBO reports to make their case already this year, it will be difficult to dismiss the CBO's new findings.
Opponents will undoubtedly find another way to make their argument, but Chabot will have to come to grips with the fact that he's handed gay marriage advocates strong evidence for their case.
The Congressional Budget Office responded today with figures that Chabot probably didn't expect. The bottom line: federal recognition of same-sex marriages would have a negligible budgetary impact. If anything, gay marriage would produce a net gain of $1 billion. (In federal budget terms, negligible.)
Activists on both sides of the aisle have all-but-accepted that gay marriage would have a detrimental impact on the budget. Just six months ago, Rep. Spencer Bachus (R-AL) testified
before Chabot's Subcommittee on the Constitution, quoting previous CBO cost estimates to make the case against same-sex marriage. The Washington Times reported one month ago that "government officials say [the federal cost of gay marriage] would be high," and quoted Bachus' concerns that the recognition would "break the bank."
Even the Human Rights Campaign didn't have a strong answer to the question, asserting on their website that the effects on the budget would be negligible because the cost to extend benefits would be offset by lessening gay families' dependence on welfare benefits and food stamps. Right.
The report, it seems, has not provided gay marriage opponents with the ammunition they had hoped to help their efforts. Plus, considering they've extrapolated results from previous CBO reports to make their case already this year, it will be difficult to dismiss the CBO's new findings.
Opponents will undoubtedly find another way to make their argument, but Chabot will have to come to grips with the fact that he's handed gay marriage advocates strong evidence for their case.
<< Home