New paid parental leave act in Congress has two fatal flaws
Ten years after the failed introduction in Congress of the paid parental leave bill, The Family Act, a bipartisan group of lawmakers is again trying to pass a paid parental leave bill. The “new and improved” Family and Medical Insurance Leave (FAMILY) Act would also provide financial assistance to families in the case of illness. The leaders of the current effort are asking for input from stakeholders, including nonprofit organizations and businesses, by January 31. They have indicated that priority would be given to low-income families.
I applaud the current effort. I ran for Congress in 2016 in Maryland’s 8th District on a campaign centered on a national family policy that would provide new families with paid parental leave, as well as other forms of support. Unfortunately, I didn’t win, and the national dialogue has not advanced much since that time. We remain the only industrialized country in the world that does not have a paid parental leave program.
But I believe the new bill has two flaws. First, a paid parental leave policy must be focused on the middle class, like Social Security and Medicare, while also addressing the needs of low-income families. Giving too much emphasis to the latter group will dilute the effort to finally bring a family security program to all new families — middle class, working class and no-income class alike.
The program also is too narrow. It should provide a tax credit for stay-athome parents beyond the proposed 12 weeks. Such a tax credit, say for half of one’s wage until a child is 2 years old, speaks to the values of Republicans in particular. It would be both an extension of paid parental leave and an option that would be offered to young families instead of a large child-care subsidy. For example, if new parents were offered $10,000 a year as a tax credit, they could instead take a $10,000 transfer payment for child-care expenses.
Indeed, by enlarging the program, the advocates would head off the massive debate about the “best way” to raise children or achieve work/family balance. The country is fairly split on whether children should have a parent at home during the early years of the child’s life, or whether parents should have the opportunity to work.
Dwight Eisenhower frequently said that when he could not solve a problem he made it bigger. The champions of paid parental leave would be wise to enlarge the problem they are trying to solve, in both moral and economic terms. By doing so, more Republicans would probably come on board since keeping a parent at home for two years will be music to their ears. A considerable number of Democrats would also come on board.
There is an obvious moral failing in our politics in not providing new parents with paid parental leave. It is atrocious, embarrassing, irresponsible and disgraceful. By injecting a second moral problem into the mix, ironically, it may be easier to solve the first problem.
The larger agenda would be more expensive, but when you finally address vitally important social needs that have strong moral arguments behind them, funding will have to be found for them.
Our annual budget is over $5 trillion, with a defense budget of close to $900 billion. It is time to find $150 billion a year for a family security program that will begin to approach the cost and the value of the $1.5 trillion a year Social Security program. The government of the United States takes care of its older Americans. The time has come for it to take care of its young families.