The conservative Heritage Foundation, normally an ally of the Trump White House, is opposing the administration’s proposal for a national paid family leave law, arguing that the regulatory push, a matter of keen interest to first daughter Ivanka Trump, would create a new entitlement program that inevitably would be abused.
“A federal [paid family leave] law could minimize or dismantle existing private and state PFL provisions, and could cost federal taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars per year. To support families’ access to PFL, the federal government can [instead] reduce marginal taxes, encourage flexible work arrangements and cut costly business regulations,” the foundation said in a policy paper released Thursday.
The stance puts the foundation directly at odds with the White House. The president’s budget proposal includes six weeks of paid leave for families after the birth or adoption of a child. Business lobbyists say the proposal was not mere rhetoric from the administration, as Ivanka Trump, a close adviser to her father, is a major advocate of the idea.
“The reality is that in 63 percent of American homes with children, all parents work. Providing a national guaranteed paid-leave program — with a reasonable time limit and benefit cap — isn’t an entitlement, it’s an investment in America’s working families,” Ivanka Trump wrote in a July 4 letter to the Wall Street Journal.
…….
The administration’s proposal would set aside $7 billion in the unemployment insurance program to fund the effort. “States would be required to provide six weeks of parental leave and the proposal gives states broad latitude to design and finance the program.”
The effort apparently circumvents the usual congressional budgeting process. The House Appropriations Commmittee’s funding bill for the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education did not include any funding for the effort. “It is a mandatory program and not in our jurisdiction,” committee spokeswoman Jennifer Hing told the Washington Examiner.
The study notes that the “size and scope” that a federal law would require “would make it difficult to minimize fraud and abuse, and without shouldering any of its costs, states would have minimal incentive to curtail fraud and abuse in the system.” That would force the federal government to rein in the program, but it is not clear that it would have the political will to do.
“If governments are going to provide paid family leave, state and local governments are better equipped to do so than a federal, one-size-fits-all paid family leave policy,” Greszler said.
……..
- Discussion
-
Heritage Foundation clashes with Trump on family leave https://t.co/HpmUzkI6gW pic.twitter.com/JPQ1gme6mo
— Washington Examiner (@dcexaminer) July 24, 2017
“The administration’s proposal would set aside $7 billion in the unemployment insurance program to fund the effort.”
So we are going to steal from the unemployment fund that is supposed to be for the unemployed to fund Ivanka’s liberal pet project? Give me a break. The same fund that denied my husband’s unemployment claim when he was laid off because he made a mistake in applying for it.
When I had my children my husband had one week vacation. Our insurance only covered a one day stay for me as I had a normal delivery. He used that week to stay home with me and the baby and then we had no vacation time off for the rest of the year. We didn’t complain. We couldn’t afford to go anywhere anyway.
We gave up new cars, vacations and other things so that I could stay home and take care of my own children. Now they want my taxes to fund not only insurance but a six week maternity leave? Will our generation ever just get a break from the gimme gimme gimme spoiled generation?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.