In 2018, the New York Occasions mentioned a proposed household go away coverage authored by Marco Rubio:
The plan backed by Mr. Rubio (and shortly to be launched within the Home by Consultant Ann Wagner, Republican of Missouri) is way more complete. Nevertheless it nonetheless makes dad and mom commerce one profit for an additional.
It will enable a mum or dad to attract from Social Safety advantages to take at the least two months of paid day off at round 40 to 70 p.c of present pay. However these dad and mom would then should delay retirement or scale back their Social Safety advantages to cowl the price of the parental go away.
The City Institute discovered that taking 12 weeks at half pay would imply forgoing 25 weeks of retirement or lowering month-to-month checks by 3 p.c.
I received’t talk about the general deserves of this plan. However I imagine that each its conservative supporters and its progressive critics are mistaken about one side of the proposal. Senator Rubio likes the truth that the plan is “paid for” by future reductions in Social Safety. Progressive critics discover that side to be punitive. I discover it utterly non-credible.
I believe that the plan could be fairly widespread with younger moms, as a price to be paid 30 or 40 years sooner or later hardly looks like one thing value worrying about right now. Extra importantly, many individuals may rationally attain the conclusion that the risk would by no means be carried out. In spite of everything, the federal government has beforehand performed this type of shell recreation with costly new packages supposedly “paid for” out of future taxes which might be more likely to be unpopular and that get repealed earlier than taking impact. Bear in mind the “Cadillac tax”?
I believe that within the 2060s, the inhabitants of growing international locations will likely be declining on account of low start charges. At the moment, I doubt policymakers will need to punish moms who opted to have kids within the 2020s by giving them lowered Social Safety advantages relative to these households that selected to stay childless. (If cuts to Social Safety are made at the moment, I believe they’ll have an effect on prosperous retirees.)
Politicians care way more about their pet tasks getting enacted than they do about future funds points. Thus they’re keen to undertake virtually any type of financing gimmick or trickery in the event that they assume it can assist to get the invoice by means of Congress.
The NYT editorial author (Bryce Covert) opposed Rubio’s plan. I believe that if she understood that risk to scale back future Social Safety advantages wouldn’t carried out, then she may favor the plan.