Marco Rubio

Marco Rubio Pitches Paid Family Leave Tradeoff

It's a clever idea, but it has problems.

|

Douglas Christian/ZUMA Press/Newscom

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) says he will unveil a bill this week that will let workers finance parental leave by delaying retirement.

"Falling rates of marriage and childbirth, coupled with the loss of stable, good-paying employment in a rapidly shifting global economy are making young families socially and financially insecure," Rubio and Rep. Ann Wagner (R-Mo.) write in a USA Today op-ed published today. (Wagner will be introducing similar legislation in the House.) "Today, having a child can be an income shock matched only by college tuition or a down payment on a home," the lawmakers add.

Rubio's legislation, dubbed the Economic Security for New Parents Act, doesn't force employers to pay for their workers' time off. Rather, it allows mothers and fathers to pay their expenses while on leave using their future Social Security benefits. "Parents taking the option would receive monthly payments that will help cover costs like rent, groceries and new baby supplies during a time of significant income constraints," the lawmakers write. In return, parents must put off retirement for three to six months. The conservative Independent Women's Forum first laid out the idea in a January paper.

Rubio and Wagner say the tradeoff is more than fair. "The financial constraints workers face in the first few weeks after having a child and those after turning 65 years old are not equal," they write. "Our proposal would be a consistent application of Social Security's original principle—to provide assistance to dependents in our care—to the challenges of today."

It's a clever idea, but it has problems. Social Security is already going bankrupt, so it's not like there's lots of extra cash lying around for people who haven't hit retirement age. And as Reason's Shikha Dalmia notes,

Just because employers don't have to fund the program doesn't mean there would be no cost to them. The scheme will incentivize more workers to take off and for longer periods of time. This will be especially disruptive for small businesses and start-ups that operate on a shoestring budget and can't spread the responsibilities of the absent workers across a large workforce. They will inevitably shy away from hiring young women of childbearing age. This will diminish these women's job options.

Many employers can afford to let workers take the time off, of course—and as the Cato Institute's Vanessa Brown Calder points out, a lot of them already offer paid family leave. "In a national study, 63 percent of working mothers said their employer provided paid maternity leave benefits," Calder writes. Lawmakers should let the market work this out instead of introducing new incentives that could leave small businesses and job-seeking women worse off.

NEXT: Jay Austin, Tiny House Innovator, Killed in Attack Claimed by ISIS

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. “Bankrupting Social Security is bad”

    So says people who support closed borders and Reason writers. Yeah, go with this

    1. Criticize the policy for its impact on business, but its impact on Social Security is a less than persuasive argument

      1. Except SS is too big to fail (until it fails). This will just be abused like SSDI is today and result in more spending. And if you think that the offsets on the backend are gonna happen…

  2. “Hi. We’re from the federal government, and we’re here to help you”.

  3. “Social Security’s original principle”

    I believe that the original principle of social security was to get old guys to quit so younger workers could have the jobs.
    Something about large numbers of unemployed young men have troubled politicians since the French Revolution.

    1. The Social Security Act (Act of August 14, 1935) [H. R. 7260]

      An act to provide for the general welfare by establishing a system of Federal old-age benefits, and by enabling the several States to make more adequate provision for aged persons, blind persons, dependent and crippled children, maternal and child welfare, public health, and the administration of their unemployment compensation laws; to establish a Social Security Board; to raise revenue; and for other purposes.
      Social Security Act of 1935

      Notice how Congress has taken “…to raise revenue; and for other purposes.” and ran with it to include $21.2 Trillion in debt.

  4. Not to mention this is a blatantly sexist policy.

  5. South Africa to change constitution to legalize taking away white farmers’ land

    Well, once it’s the law of the land, surely no one will have a problem with this. The rule of law is how we know we’re doing the right thing.

    1. Except that stealing land to give to others is theft. I bet a compensation was never offered.

      Government taking land to build roads is called eminent domain. Just compensation is required.

      Way to attack Rule of Law because Socialists stole land. We never saw it coming.

      1. There comes a time when people need to finally realize that responding to you is a foolish waste of time.

      2. Yes. It would work much different if they had better Top Men. They just have the wrong people in charge. This is different. There’s nothing wrong with the rule of law, it’s just the wrong people writing bad laws for self-serving reasons.

        I’m doing my best to sound wry rather than snide, except I realize I have little control over how you decide to interpret me once you realize we disagree.

        1. It would work much different if they had better Top Men.

          I didn’t read the part where he mentioned other/better Top Men. He said ‘Just compensation’ and you effectively replied, “There can be no ‘just’ compensation! Only the terrible oppression of government!” like an idiotic zealot.

          1. Is this you being curious about my thoughts, or taking an opportunity to call me names? It’s not terribly clear whether I’m being invited to a clarifying conversation, or a pissing match.

          2. Sometimes people just assume what LC1789 is saying. Sometimes they end up looking more foolish than him. SAD

            1. Well, white farmers might have their land taken by legal order without compensation,. and yet at least we all know I’m inferior. There is yet balm in Gilead.

            2. You can read what I wrote. Its was clear.

              Its upsets you that the USA is a Constitutional Democratic Republic rather than Anarchy-land.

              1. This is a fun game. Tell me what I’m thinking now.

                1. Do you know why Reason does not devote much, if any, coverage to the governance of South Africa, a veritable Wakanda?

                2. You’re thinking you would like to find a brain.

                  It fell out on your way to this website.

                  1. Oh no, someone on the internet called me stupid. Well, there goes life.

              2. It upsets me that you think there’s a difference between theft and forcing someone (at gunpoint) to sell their property to you at a price *you* choose.

                It upsets me that you think that Eminient Domain is ok because the right ‘Top Men’ wrote it and so it will never, never, never be abused in the US but the wrong ‘Top Men’ are re-writing SA’s constitution so it will be full of loopholes they can exploit.

                1. Sorry, you’re upset. Democratic Republics have upset people sometimes as you cannot make everyone happy all the time.

                  The problem is that property owners will sometimes never sell land at all or at around market price when roads need to be built. Unfortunately all roads for all time cannot be built before there are property owners. Even worse is that governments rarely plan ahead, so road expansions tend to come after significant development has already taken place.

                  For the USA, all territory is under the protection and rules set forth in the US Constitution. The Framers came up with a compromise to absolute citizen property rights, road construction, and the US and states controlling all territory within its boundaries.

                  The 5th Amendment protected property rights against straight seizure and the compensation under Eminent Domain has to be ‘just’.

                  1. Right up until someone decides to change that, or reinterpret it, or that it doesn’t really count in this situation, the Founders musta been thinkin’ of some other situation.

                    I like how that circled right back around to the original post. Neat.

                    1. Yup you can change the Constitution with 3/4 of the states ratifying the changes. I wonder why that hasnt happened since the 1970s. The 27th Amendment was ratified in the 1990s but it was submitted in the 19th Century.

                      Judges are interpreting the Constitution is manner that violates their oath and should be impeached.

                      Freedom isnt free or on cruise control.

                    2. Yup you can change the Constitution with 3/4 of the states ratifying the changes. I wonder why that hasnt happened since the 1970s.

                      And yet here we are, still four decades in to Prohibition 2.0. The one where it turned out no one needed to amend the Constitution, suddenly we could ban things without it. Then there’s the foreign police actions and anti-terrorisms nation-building which are definitely not declared wars, since that would not be allowed. They’ve been going on since Britney Spears was a model of virginity.

                      It’s as if there’s this whole is/ought thing going on.

                      Freedom isnt free or on cruise control.

                      I agree. Seeing what’s really there is always the tricky part. We’d like the right things to just happen, free from cost, except TANSTAAFL. It’s be nice and easy to hand our lives over to rule-makers who promise to make only the right rules, and yet “legal” may be used to describe very un-right things happening to South African farmers.

                    3. Part of the problem is people accept the unconstitutional drug laws. You hear people all excited about weed becoming legal in states. Those drug laws were unconstitutional, so weed should have already been legal.

                      One great way to not accept government unconstitutional laws is to acquit every drug case you sit on a jury for.

        2. So since some laws have a terrible premise, the very concept of using laws is flawed. Of course you aren’t substituting your version of top men when you pick and choose which laws to obey. No, that’s different because you’re right(tm).

          Good thing that we solved that whole capriciousness of monarchy, because laws clearly aren’t the solution.

          1. Of course I’m substituting Top Men. I think you are a Top Man. I’m a Top Man. Each South African farmer is his own Top Man. You are the only person I really trust to run your own life.

            I am very sorry this makes you discontent with me. I am probably going to persist in thinking it, though. I’ll just be a bit mournful that we can’t have good conversations about it.

            It’s as if we went through the Enlightenment and learned the ‘divine mandate of kings’ was crap, and promptly fell to bickering over who DID have the divine right to rule over us all.

      3. Responding to $parkY is a fools errand.

      4. Think the whites offered compensation when they took the land in the first place?

        1. It depends. Are we talking about the Boers? African tribes had a different view on property than Europeans. In some cases there was some form of compensation and in some cases there wasn’t. Either way, justifying immoral actions today based upon actions in the past is a surefire way to screw everyone over

          1. Assuming that a property entitlement is a right written in the fabric of the cosmos is what makes libertarians wrong about everything.

            1. Such a statement could work for or against your position.

              1. My position is that property belongs to whomever the people with the most guns say it does. Hardly a passive thing, and so trespassing is hardly the initiation of force.

                1. Assume the situation was different, Tony, and we were talking about Israel seizing Palestinian land without compensation. I don’t think you’d be defending the land seizure by discussing how that land was first taken by the Ottomans without just compensation. And, to be fair, the people criticizing the South African government now would probably not be voicing the same criticism toward Israel

            2. Sure, but enacting elaborate constructs around economics, ownership, and social strata without even a basic agreement or understanding of property rights makes all the rest not even wrong about everything.

              If nobody owns anything then nobody’s losing anything when we exterminate blacks or the Jews or the gays or the Bedouin or the Romani or the kulaks…

            3. Assuming that a property entitlement is a right written in the fabric of the cosmos is what makes libertarians wrong about everything.

              Then why were the Boers wrong to start farming the land in the first place?

              You can’t have it both ways. If property rights don’t exist for white people, they don’t exist for the brown people, either.

              If you really believe your assertion that “property belongs to whomever the people with the most guns say it does,” then you must have been against the apartheid government being dismantled because they owned the country fair and square, right?

              1. I’m saying “fair and square” has little to do with it. If we’re lucky we get a property rights system that approaches it, but the essence of property is that someone else gets shafted, namely anyone who wants the property and doesn’t get it.

                1. If we’re lucky we get a property rights system that approaches it, but the essence of property is that someone else gets shafted, namely anyone who wants the property and doesn’t get it.

                  Then what’s your point with saying “Think the whites offered compensation when they took the land in the first place?”

                  What does it matter? The whites had more guns. Fuck the browns.

                  This is what you are saying. Correct me if I am misunderstanding.

                  1. What I really want to get to is the fact that the nonagression principle is crap since property is the initiation of aggression against anyone who does not accept the terms of the entitlement, and regardless usually was doled out initially with some pretty indisputable aggression.

                    Because I say that something is, that doesn’t mean I’m saying that’s how it ought to be.

                    1. the nonagression principle is crap since property is the initiation of aggression against anyone who does not accept the terms of the entitlement, and regardless usually was doled out initially with some pretty indisputable aggression

                      If “the nonagression principle is crap,” then why does it matter that property was “doled out initially with some pretty indisputable aggression?”

                      If “property belongs to whomever the people with the most guns say it does,” then what are you complaining about? All is well with the world. Property is in the hands of those who have rightfully taken it through their superior force, as it should be in your formulation.

                    2. Even most libertarians think government should be that guy with the most guns when it comes to property. I think we’re all on the same page.

                    3. Even most libertarians think government should be that guy with the most guns when it comes to property. I think we’re all on the same page.

                      No – we’re not on the same page at all.

                      You’re saying that there is no such thing as property or morality and that property and rights are only for those strong enough to seize them by force.

                      The fact that libertarians think the most legitimate role of government is responding with force to people who violate the rights of others is not the same thing at all.

                      You say “the guys with the guns should have the stuff because they are capable of taking it and that’s really the only the moral law there is,” while libertarians are more apt to say “the guys with the guns should be restrained to only defending people from the aggression of others, since it is immoral to initiate aggression.”

                      Do you see how those two stances are different?

            4. Then why all the whining about the poor Palestinians, given that Muslims stole the land via conquest from earlier inhabitants?

              1. Reparations to the Assyrians!

        2. White men offered fire water, guns, and other trade for land or rights to land.

          Read some Native American-USA treaties some time. Some land was stolen but much was traded away or there were bad agreements after peace treaties.

          Too bad they ‘found’ North America too and dominated whomever was here before them.

          1. With Tony, I automatically thought he was attacking the USA.

          2. Ehh…the experience of White settlement in the US was distinctly different than that in South Africa. Native Americans in the US experienced a concerted campaign of forced relocation and broken treaties. South Africa’s colonization by the Dutch and later the English was markedly different because the Dutch and the English never had the numbers to do the same to the indigenous people there. Until, of course, they became an independent state and utilized their advanced military to impose forced relocation and broken treaties.

          3. Those treaties were usually coerced and subsequently violated.

            1. Not all of them.

        3. Think the whites offered compensation when they took the land in the first place?

          How about we ask what the individuals who’s lands are being confiscated did, rather than projecting upon them the crimes of people who look somewhat like them?

          1. You do realize that a lot of them were alive during Apartheid, right? As are many of the 3.5 million Africans who had their land confiscated.

            1. The people who lost their land in the 1870’s are still alive? I fear that you have no knowledge about South Africa’s history

              1. The land that is being confiscated was acquired during the Boer’s northern trek when they founded the Orange Free State and Transvaal. They aren’t confiscating land from Cape Town. You realize, of course, that this is not related to apartheid, right?

      5. Except that stealing land to give to others is theft.

        And detaining peaceful people and transporting them far away is kidnapping.

        1. Who?

    2. You know who isn’t going to care?

      Reason.

      1. It’s a damned shame. Helluva story, awful situation all around, it could do with some attention and thoughtful commentary.

      2. I can’t really fault them, though. I mean, 42 years ago they published an article by a guy who went on to question some statistics about the Holocaust, and they’re still being called Holocaust Deniers because of it.

        Imagine publishing an article lamenting the plight of white people in South Africa. Any realities of the story aside, doing so would be immediate and permanent sociopolitical suicide for the Reason Foundation and would set back the libertarian movement by decades.

        1. As a matter of fact, now that I think of it, I believe they did publish at least one article on the plight of white people in South Africa, I want to say about 30+ years ago, and they’re still living that one down, too.

          1. Do, pray tell how Reason is living that one down.

            If you believe that the cause of liberty hinges upon not offending black and brown and their white cucks, then you have already surrendered.

            1. I still hear about this from people on the left playing “gotcha” with the idea that libertarianism is just cover for white supremacy.

              It’s not about “not offending black and brown and their white cucks,” it’s about understanding enough about politics to know when you’re making it easy for your opponents to vilify you.

              1. You could mention that Linda Sarsour has been on national broadcasts and she is appreciably worse than those cranks.

              2. Not to worry, there are few libertarians who would actually hold Reason up as embodying their ideals.

              3. Why are you so concerned about what the left thinks?

                1. Because there is such a thing as “independent voters.”

                  Being right in principle while 95% of the population believes you’re a Nazi doesn’t mean a whole lot.

  6. Keep government out of the role of making labor rules.

    Let employees make deals with employers about maternity/paternity vacation.

    Its BS to force employers to pay people to have babies.

    1. If you watch any stand up comedy, especially the Comedy Central sanctioned female ones, you’ll hear a lot of stupid like “can you believe America is the only developed country without paid maternity leave?!”

      Well, it’s just one of the few countries where it isn’t mandated. But you do have a choice to negotiate for it in your contract or find a job that offers it. The mandate simply takes away that choice so you don’t have the higher-paying option to not include the benefit. Forcing women to be paid less – that’s progress. Just fix it with another equal pay law. While we’re at it, can we please repeal the law of gravity and replace it with a department of miniature elfs to pull things to the ground.

    2. I don’t see anything in the article that says O’Rubio’s bill requires employers to give such leave. AFAICT it’s just making SS $ available to those who do.

      1. Which is why either the article’s complaint or its reporting is bogus.

  7. Not enough babies!!!! OMG, OMG

    See, Repubs can be shrill idiots just like the left.

    Also, something, something – limited govt.

    1. I dream of the day when decent people trying to come up with good answers figure out that we’re asking the wrong questions.

    2. Population decline is actually a concern in most of the West (and the world generally speaking). The conservatives want to increase domestic child birth and the liberals want to import new people. They both recognize the same concern.

      1. I expect our society to continue to improve in line with the general arc of American progress during my lifetime and before, which means arranging conditions that enable young people to build families and welcoming immigrants.

        1. Something must be wrong, I agree with the good reverend

          1. You’re missing the part where he thinks ‘Top Men’ controlling all activity from Washington is how we enable young people to build families and welcome immigrants.

            1. Trying to meet him half-way

              1. Careful, you’ll end up a long ways down the road to crazy doing that.

        2. Sadly you apparently believe that by taxing and regulating the everloving shit out of everything you’re actually “arranging conditions that enable young people to build families”. For most people that will come before the welcoming immigrants part.

      2. Population decline…

        So it must be the subject of govt policy? Say what kind of libertarian are you?

        1. I never said the government should be involved (although the government is very much involved in reducing population). I was saying that concern for a declining population is not an opinion unique to conservatives

          1. I believe that Ron has posted, repeatedly, on how prosperity and education have reduced population growth all over the world. I’m sure given the chance, that social engineering will fuck up this happy state of affairs, one way or another.

            1. I’m not Ron. But, it never ceases to amaze me how offended some libertarians get when a politician proposes something to benefit family growth, but then shrug when the government continues to fund family planning initiatives domestically and abroad. It’s rather inconsistent. Either social engineering is bad or it’s not. I’m not saying that you’re doing that, but it is a common blind spot among some.

              1. Well he very clearly said that population growth should be reduced. For a group of people who claim to be pro-human that’s certainly a curious position to take.

                1. Well he very clearly said that population growth should be reduced.

                  Who said that?

              2. I’m not saying that you’re doing that

                Well that’s white of you. I get offended at most political spending proposals; stop fucking with people’s lives with our tax dollars is a pretty equal opportunity slam. Conservatives get no special consideration.

                1. “Conservatives get no special consideration.”

                  I never said they should. I’m really not sure what your complaint is anymore

                  1. [blinks] [checks glasses]

                    [whispers] All social engineering via the tax code, regardless of partisan affiliation or putative ‘goodness’ of the proposal.

                    Does that clear it up?

                    1. “I never said the government should be involved (although the government is very much involved in reducing population). I was saying that concern for a declining population is not an opinion unique to conservatives”

                      I am really not getting what you’re going on about

                  2. [blinks] [checks glasses]

                    [whispers] All social engineering via the tax code, regardless of partisan affiliation or putative ‘goodness’ of the proposal.

                    Does that clear it up?

    3. The trend is the Democratic Party dying and becoming a tiny party of Socialists and Communists.

      The GOP will be the party of big spending government religious people.

      The Libertarians will be the only group for free market, small and limited government, no victimless crimes, and maximum Liberty under the US Constitution.

      1. Yay for the 1.5%! Or on a really good day better than 3%.

  8. The scheme will incentivize more workers to take off and for longer periods of time. This will be especially disruptive for small businesses and start-ups

    Without endorsing the proposal, I suppose I have to add my voice to the chorus this one time: Shikha is a dick.

    There is nothing noble about working until you die of coronary disease. We’re not seeing wage growth for the little people anyway. Fuck this Calvinist horseshit. The “pro-business” orthodoxy has been trying to convince us that working for them for peanuts for as few benefits as possible is good for our soul. Well we don’t have souls, we have time, a limited amount of it, and we should spend as little of that time padding the pockets of CEOs as possible. I’m sorry that requires government intervention, but so did fixing slavery and sweatshops, so oh the fuck well.

    1. There is, however, something notable about taking (at gunpoint) resources from one group of people to benefit another group of people who’ve had over 30 years to get their shit together and plan for the day when they will no longer wish to, or be capable of, work.

      1. Surely you’re not suggesting that retirees and such don’t deserve police and judicial intervention when someone trespasses on their property. I can’t keep this straight. Are taxes evil or not?

        1. Remind me when police and court services included rent, food, and medical care. Remind me exactly what “services” net taxpayers are getting by paying for programs to make you feel better about yourself.

    2. Stop peddling that “I’m sorry this-or-that requires government intervention” line. You’re not sorry. You *want* government intervention in every aspect of our lives. ALL THE TIME. You want government to tell us what we eat, what products to buy, how the fruits of our labor are used, who to bake a cake for, how our children are raised, ad infinitum.

      No one here believes you want “just this little new government power”.

      1. Whether something is best handled by market forces or the government, I prefer not to be emotional about it.

        1. We know. You pick government every time.

        2. Hence your not hyperbolic statements about starving children and greedy billionaires.

    3. we should spend as little of that time padding the pockets of CEOs as possible

      Well, you could stop giving your money to CEOs, if that indeed is what your problem is.

      But something tells me that in fact the money you’re getting is coming from the CEOs, not the other way around, but feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.

      1. Yeah and he has a huge trade deficit with me!

        1. So . . . is this you admitting you were wrong when you said “we should spend as little of that time padding the pockets of CEOs as possible,” given the extent that you personally benefit from CEOs having cash to pay you?

          1. They’re always getting the better end of the deal since they have more power. I’m just saying we won’t collapse as a society if we have a few more labor perks.

            1. Just a “few more”… always with the qualifiers with you.

            2. and a few more labor perks…. and a few more labor perks…and a few more labor perks….

              1. And you behave in the exact same way, with the exception that you want all the perks to keep going to the men at the top, and the other exception that you’re too dumb to know that’s what you’re supporting.

            3. They’re always getting the better end of the deal since they have more power.

              So, in other words you concede that what money you have is coming from them and that it’s not the case that what money they have is coming from you.

              So they are supporting you in return for labor you are providing them. You want more, but you don’t want to negotiate that like a civilized person, you want the Army to extract it from them unilaterally.

              Which comes back to your point about justice really being just whatever you can force someone else to do for you if you have more guns than them.

              Remind me again what moral obligation the CEO owes you?

              1. What moral obligation do people have to stay off your property or not kidnap your children? A system of laws precedes social interactions (if we’re lucky), including labor-management ones.

                1. What moral obligation do people have to stay off your property or not kidnap your children? A system of laws precedes social interactions

                  But what is the basis of that system of laws? Why, in your formulation, would it be wrong for people to trespass on my property and kidnap my children? Only because the law says so, and if it didn’t say so it would be okay?

                  Is that really what you are arguing?

                  If so, why does the CEO owe you a set of laws that benefits you rather than her?

                  1. We both have the same burden of providing first principles. I don’t feel it necessary to get anxiously nerdy about it all. Do what works. Gain legitimacy by way of democracy. It’s why I’m partial to the pragmatists. It’s not necessary to have a bunch of dour moralists trying to bang first principles into everyone’s heads, be they theocrats or libertarians. Let’s just muddle our way through using our brains, shall we?

                    1. We both have the same burden of providing first principles.

                      Yes – and I have provided one: non-aggression.

                      You have not, which makes your declaration of being “pragmatic” meaningless; what are you being “pragmatic” about? You are again simply declaring that there is no such thing as morality beyond what the mob/the strong force on everyone else.

                      So, again, what is your complaint about the world? If the CEO has taken your money and you can’t do anything about it, what’s wrong with that?

                      I get that you wish you could get together a big mob and vote for the Army to go take the CEO’s money and give it to you, but that’s not really panning out, is it?

                      So, in your view of things, doesn’t your failure to take the CEO’s money by force mean that you don’t deserve it? Why should the CEO, or anyone else, care whether or not you have as much money as you feel you deserve if the only concern anyone need take up is a completely amoral “pragmatism?”

                      Wouldn’t “pragmatism” from the CEO’s perspective be firing you and hiring someone who would be more content with his compensation?

                2. A system of laws precedes social interactions

                  No. Logically, you can’t have mutually agreed upon laws before coming together to mutually agree on them, which is a social interaction.

                  And just looking at the world as it is, lots of social interactions take place that aren’t governed by laws, thank God. Capital C Culture as an emergent force does more to shape laws than laws do to shape culture.

    4. It’s odd agreeing with Tony.

      Libertarianism that is ALWAYS on the side of business isn’t a consistent ideology. Wages should be going up during “good” times, but Reason seems to support numerous policies that consistently violate the option.

      No, I’m not talking about increasing minimum wage. That is just idiotic. Nor is increasing it AND directing it at restaurants, which will make waiters less money AND get plenty of folks fired.

      Reason should not be beholden to big business ,which is as opposed to Libertarian philosophy as the Politburo.

      1. Libertarianism that is ALWAYS on the side of business isn’t a consistent ideology.

        No, but libertarianism that is ALWAYS on the side of non-aggression is.

  9. Social Security is already going bankrupt, so it’s not like there’s lots of extra cash lying around for people who haven’t hit retirement age.

    Has anyone at Reason taken an econ class or managed anyone’s finances (including their own) besides setting up direct deposit and automated bill pay? This isn’t anything radically divergent from regular bankruptcy and/or debt consolidation.

    If the people who haven’t hit retirement age accept a cash sum now, they diminish the amount owed in bankruptcy. Arguably, depending on who massages the numbers and how, they’ll be taking a smaller sum than they’d (not) get when they retire.

    I don’t necessarily like the bill (depending on the details) any more than the author does, but this “They don’t have the cash on hand.” argument is just dumb. Especially, when it’s an effective privatization of at least a chunk of Social Security.

    1. They’ll take a smaller total sum, sure, but it will hit us *now*. And we’re already running massive deficits each year. Now imagine the cash-flow crisis when this new expense hits the streets.

      1. They’ll take a smaller total sum, sure, but it will hit us *now*. And we’re already running massive deficits each year.

        I’ll talk slower: That’s. the. point. Financially speaking, the only way deficits matter more than the debt owed in Soc. Sec. is if you somehow assume you’re going to reach solvency on SS and/or the debt and that today’s deficits (or the higher ones) are preventing it. Or that the amount owed outside SS is somehow an intrinsically worse ‘investment’ than in SS. That’s not the case. We could run $0 deficits for a decade and SS would still be bankrupt. More morally speaking; money has been taken from (Boomers and…) Gen Xers and Millennials under the auspices of providing for their retirement. It’s already been spent on TGGers and Boomers leaving Gen Xers and Millennials with nothing but the tab. This proposal allows them to scrape them and their offspring to “renege” on a tab that they didn’t open, didn’t want or choose to pay, and haven’t exactly enjoyed the fruits of.

        1. This proposal allows them to scrape them and their offspring to “renege” on a tab that they didn’t open, didn’t want or choose to pay, and haven’t exactly enjoyed the fruits of.

          We’ll pay off SS shortly before Reason gets an edit button.

      2. The real risk is the usual scope creep and/or redistribution as INS notes immediately below us. Unemployed single parents with 8 kids will be granted the same per child expenditure as dual-income single-child homes (on top of SNAP and other payouts) despite the fact that the latter will be dumping massively greater amounts into SS and then, 40 yrs. down the line, the former will be oppressed by being forced to wait longer to retire.

        You can certainly point out that Rubio is walking headlong into unintended consequences and I don’t disagree. However, there’s no indication that he’s knowingly doing so, that’s not the argument Reason is making and, even if they were, it’s readily comparable or able to be extrapolated to their open borders idiocy.

  10. Forty years from now, “It’s not fair that some people have to wait longer for retirement than others”. Mark my words.

  11. Marco, Marco, Marco; how can you support such an anti-gay policy?

    1. Don’t worry – it can also be used for the adoption of a new dog

      1. You joke, but seeing as the Family Medical Leave Act covers adoption as well as birth, this proposal (if sticking to precedent) would as well.

        So unless Republicans go out of their way, this wouldn’t be anti-gay, just pro-family. You know, what they’ve been claiming they are for years.

  12. Is Rubio posturing in advance of the 2020 election?

    Signs point to YES.

  13. Was listening to CSPAN radio on my commute this morning and they had this young Democratic Socialist on talking about “Medicare for All” and how the current plans put forth by some Democrats for expanding health insurance are not good enough. I found myself thinking “Why the heck not!” Indeed, lets just have the government open all of our wallets and give the people all the free shit they can dream of-health care, child care, paid leave, cars, food. Somebody will have to pay for it, of course, but it will be fun while it lasts.

    1. Yeah, other than the fact that it would royally suck to be a part of while it was happening, part of me wants to just give up and let them have exactly what they’re asking for.

    2. I figured this out a while back, which is why I EARLY-RETIRED and now am sucking on the government teat of ObamaRomneyHeritageCare Medicaid expansion, with my nest-egg full de-taxed in a Roth IRA.

  14. Technocrats and their little schemes. What a load of nonsense, but typical.

  15. Economic Security for New Parents Act

    The lazy bastards couldn’t even be bothered to think up a catchy title like “Saving Our Children From Being Fed To Wolves Act”?

    1. SOCFBFTWA ain’t much better.

  16. It’s a creative idea. I wonder if it might even save SS a small amount of money if the parental leave benefits are less than the parents would receive in the first few months of retirement.

    It probably won’t pass, though, because at the end of the day what people really want is to socialize the tradeoffs that come with having kids, and this doesn’t go far enough down that path.

    1. Its a non-Libertarian government push into labor and employer relations. Not that Rubio is a Libertarian.

      If you want to have a baby, there are consequences.

      1. Indeed. Having 50% of births paid for by Medicaid is NOT a good situation.

  17. Disclaimer: I am not, and never have been, a libertarian.

    This actually sounds pretty good to me. Fact is, most Millennials (who would be the bill of the beneficiaries for a decade or so) aren’t expecting to retire until we got full retirement age anyway (70 something). So pushing that back by half a year really isn’t going to be a big deal for us (especially when you remember that fewer Millennials are expecting Social Security to be a major party of our retirement income compare to Boomers).

    I’m sure there are issues with it, but at first blush I don’t see anything glaring (and I’m not persuaded by the “small businesses can’t afford this!” line or the “they’ll hire fewer women” line. Both have been used since women entered the workforce, sooner or later you have to give em up).

  18. Why is letting people somewhat cash out early from SS by this means bad by comparison to the status quo, while letting them cash out early by other means good compared to the status quo?

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.