A caveat for family and medical leave

No Democrat, certainly not Sen. Julie Kushner or Rep. Robyn Porter, thinks the job of making economic amends to low-wage earners is done now that Connecticut is on track to see its minimum wage rise steadily to $15 an hour in five years.

Kushner, of Danbury, and Porter, of New Haven, barely celebrated the milestone votes before turning toward their next hurdle — passing a paid family and medical leave bill.

The Senate is set to vote on the bill, with its SB 1 designation, this week. And even though paid leave held the SB 1 honor for two prior years without so much as a floor vote, this time it will happen. Expect a straight party-line vote, as with the minimum wage, and an eager signature from Gov. Ned Lamont.

Within two or three years, when the paid leave program is up and running, we will fork over 0.5 percent of our wages toward the newly established insurance fund to pay for those leaves — on earnings up to the Social Security tax threshold, which now stands at $128,400.

That means $450 a year for a typical family of four pulling in $90,000. Some can afford it easily enough, others, less so.

This is good legislation but the timing troubles me for several reasons. I suggest we pass it and Lamont signs it, with a caveat: It takes effect immediately upon passage of a state budget that contains no broad-based tax increases.

I’m not in the “enough is enough” camp, not exactly, anyway, because the economy isn’t working for the working poor. Still, color me a nervous “enough for now.” Here’s why:

Paid family and medical leave will mean a fee, or a levy, or a charge, or, heavens, can I call it a tax, of roughly $400 million a year. This, at a time when we’re already famously one of the most expensive states.

And we most likely will raise the cost of living in this great state in three other ways before the roses bloom in Elizabeth Park.

The minimum wage hike, to $11 from $10.10 on Oct. 1, is a done deal, fair and right, but not without its costs. It will send Connecticut that much further ahead of the shameful national minimum of $7.25 an hour. It will lift up tens of thousands of wage-earners but it will also, as Republicans said, lead to some price hikes and some lost jobs — though not as much as the GOP claims.

Highway tolls, at an annual cost of about $550 million for Connecticut residents, make sense for the simple reason that we need the money and the choice is clear: Borrow between $375 million and $800 million a year, pay hefty interest and cut spending or raise taxes to pay for it, or toll ourselves and our lovely out-of-state visitors. That will give us $800 million in our pockets for an outlay of $550 million, instead of $550 million for an outlay of $800 million, through borrowing.

Speaking of cutting spending, no Republican has proposed a

budget that does so, enough to avert a tax increase. That means the state budget of $21 billion for 2019-20 will need a tax increase in the range of $400 million, more or less. Don’t even start with “take it out of the union benefits” because at best, that’s a long-term play.

Conservatively, that’s a tax increase (sorry about the T-word) of $1 billion a year and I’m leaving out a few things such as rising property taxes.

Is this the precise moment for a household charge of $300 to $600 a year, more or less, for Connecticut families? I love the idea and Connecticut should pass paid leave, but with the nation’s eyes on this state for its spiraling costs and stagnant job growth, I’m afraid the answer is not quite.

Lamont, Kushner, Porter and most other Democrats say Connecticut needs paid leave to keep its membership card in the club of civilized states. A few years ago it was just California, Rhode Island and New Jersey that had it. Now New York, Washington state (and D.C.) and Massachusetts are on board.

That means Connecticut does need to offer workers this social insurance option, sooner or later. But Massachusetts, for example, is cutting or holding the line on taxes and already has tolls. Connecticut can wait just a bit longer, especially if we line up a bill on the runway.

All it takes is a year without a broad tax increase — a hike of $200 million or more in one of the major taxes such as personal income or sales or corporate earnings — and we’re good to go. That gives us a goal to work toward.

We all can buy into the argument that these programs — tolls, the minimum wage hikes, broader taxes to pay for services and paid family leave — are investments in something that could pay off. Whether each is worth the cost is a valid debate, but at least they are investments in people, which we need to make.

I asked my 23-year-old daughter, a music teacher in Boston, if paid family leave would make her more likely to move back to Connecticut. Yes it would, she said, though I dared not ask whether that tripled her chance of returning to, say, 3 percent.

The point is, we need to turn Connecticut into a place where people want to live and paid leave is part of the picture.

The question is exactly when. Porter argues vehemently that lowwage workers have waited long enough, and they have, she’s right.

Rep. Anne Hughes, D-Easton, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, makes the point that all these investments need to work “in concert” for the best effect. She’s right.

Still, we should all, liberals too, stop whistling past the grim growth reaper at a time when we’re not performing as well as those other states.

Tolls, the minimum wage and the likely tax increase will pass with most likely zero Republican support. Ditto, paid family leave. That’s just not the best way to govern even if all four cost increases make sense. Republicans are saying the 12-week paid leave plan, with weekly compensation of up to $1,000, depending on how the bill shapes up, has too many holes, too many risks of abuse.

They’re wrong about that. It’s a good program. We just aren’t quite ready to pay for it.