Reason.com

Free Minds & Free Markets

Why Are Conservatives Suddenly Supporting Mandatory Paid Leave?

The additional cost of adding paid leave to Social Security would be $114 billion over 10 years.

The economy is thriving, unemployment rates are low, and companies that have to compete for quality employees are expanding benefits, including paid time off. That makes this an odd moment for conservatives to shift their position on whether the government should implement a family leave mandate.

A 2017 working group made up of representatives from the center-left Brookings Institution and the conservative American Enterprise Institute outlined the need for a federal paid family leave law. They point to Bureau of Labor Statistics data showing that only 13 percent of private sector workers receive paid leave.

This number ignores a multitude of paid leave options and other benefits that frequently are provided by employers, however. In a new report, the Cato Institute's Vanessa Brown Calder corrects the record. Citing more comprehensive government metrics, she finds that as of 2008 (the last year for which we have data), as many as 61 percent of women reported having access to some form of paid leave from their employers, up dramatically from 16 percent in the 1960s. Calder notes that even in the absence of a federal policy, the number of new moms who quit working declined "from over 60 percent in 1961 to just over 20 percent in 2008."

There's no reason to believe that trend won't continue, especially since many firms—encouraged by the prospect of economic growth following the tax reform law of 2017—have publicly announced a commitment to paid leave.

Left and right often disagree about how to get more businesses to do the same. Progressives prefer the European approach, in which government requires companies to provide paid leave to all employees; in some countries, the state even finances that leave through taxes. Conservatives, meanwhile, are more comfortable with less intrusive policies such as allowing people to borrow money from their own future Social Security checks—perhaps because they know mandates ultimately hurt employees.

Calder reviews the literature and shows that top-down paid leave requirements are likely to be offset by lower wages or fewer employee benefits of other types. They could also incentivize employers to discriminate in favor of older workers and against applicants of childbearing age.

Interestingly, when voters are presented with these costs, their support for a federal paid leave policy collapses. In an upcoming paper, Emily Ekins of Cato shows that when people are told they might see an increase of $1,200 in taxes due to the new policy, their support drops from 74 percent to 43 percent. If the leave is funded with cuts to programs like Social Security, as some Republicans want, support drops all the way to 21 percent.

While the conservative alternative doesn't include a mandate, it's also not a small-government policy. It expands the sphere of federal intervention into an area where it's currently absent. Generously assuming such a program keeps its promise to make today's beneficiaries postpone retirement to pay for the money they're drawing, the plan still requires extra benefits to be paid to new parents now on top of the benefits for current retirees. This increased spending will either speed up the depletion of the Social Security trust fund or require transfers from the general revenue stream—and that means more taxes. According to the Heritage Foundation's Rachel Greszler and Drew Gonshorowski, the additional cost of adding paid leave to Social Security would be $114 billion over 10 years.

Realistically, such a plan would grow the size and scope of government in the long run, too. Political pressures will likely ensure the promised spending offsets never materialize. Plus, if we can use future Social Security benefits for paid leave, why can't we use them for unemployment benefits, college tuition, and mortgage payments? Greszler and Gonshorowski project the 10-year cost could rise to $230 billion.

Meanwhile, this scheme would reduce the benefits offered by private companies. In testimony before Congress, the consulting firm Deloitte recently explained that when the state of California began offering paid leave, Deloitte trimmed its paid leave by the amount the government was now providing. Growing government and shrinking civil society are hardly core conservative principles.

Photo Credit: TongSur/iStock

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.

  • Jerryskids||

    So why are conservatives suddenly supporting mandatory paid leave? You never really answer the question since there's no link to this AEI/Brookings working group's outline and browsing the AEI site doesn't reveal an easy link to it although there are many mentions of it. From what I can tell, it's something the Chamber of Commerce conservatives support as they aren't actually philosophically opposed to Big Government and the Nanny State, they just want to be the ones controlling the levers of power. The idea that a government powerful enough to give you everything you want is also a government powerful enough to take everything you have just doesn't occur to them. But when they get this "pro-working families" legislation passed and the Dems regain control of government and expand the program beyond all bounds of reason, they'll be the first to start whining about how "this isn't what we meant". It's not their fault the tiger tore their arm off, they just wanted to pet the nice little kitty.

  • Robert||

    Yes, the CoC's never been better than that, but at least we can take advantage of a train that's going a little of the way in the direction we want. It's foolish to attack policies that might be amended in the future to bad ends, because every & any reform can be attacked that way. it's like those saying that after hemp farming's decontrolled, the next step will be federal and/or st. subsidies for it.

  • itsjustbob||

    "...Progressives prefer the European approach, in which government requires companies to provide paid leave to all employees;.."

    We need to follow Europe's lead because things are going swell over there....

  • wearingit||

    Yeah, compared to here with medical bankruptcies, a joke of an administration, etc.

    Quite simply, there is both good and bad to both places but to dismiss something with that pathetic of an argument? It's..well, pathetic.

  • DesigNate||

    It's so much better to just be told to pound sand by a bureaucrat then face the possibility of bankruptcy.

  • ||

    compared to here with medical bankruptcies

    When you force a bank to make risky loans does it prevent heart attacks? I'm fairly certain of the answer on this side of the pond.

  • soldiermedic76||

    Hmmm Trump is far more popular then Merkel, Macon, May or Trudeau. Seems like if our administration is a laugh out loud level joke then the European and Canadians must be laughing my ass off level of jokes.

  • Mickey Rat||

    Gee, progressives prefer to put the burden of dealing with the costs of their wants on other people. That is so surprisin.

  • Robert||

    While the conservative alternative doesn't include a mandate, it's also not a small-government policy. It expands the sphere of federal intervention into an area where it's currently absent. Generously assuming such a program keeps its promise to make today's beneficiaries postpone retirement to pay for the money they're drawing, the plan still requires extra benefits to be paid to new parents now on top of the benefits for current retirees. This increased spending will either speed up the depletion of the Social Security trust fund or require transfers from the general revenue stream—and that means more taxes.


    I disagree. It's not a smaller-gov't policy, but it is a freedom-increasing policy. (I'm the one who explained to Mike Hihn decades ago that the degrees of freedom aren't always inverse to the size of gov't—that it's possible for a single policy change to increase or decrease both.) In this case it's a choice of allowing taxpayers more choice as to the disposition of $ being taken from them anyway.

    There's no end to the possible criticism of a policy change as to creating popular-political pressure for a countervailing one. That's the same talk that says tax cuts will be "financed" now or in the future by tax increases.

  • Robert||

    Sheesh, a minute to write something, & 10 mins. waiting for ads to load onto the page.

  • Longtobefree||

    Chrome; adblocker plus

  • Libertarianitis||

    Chrome; adblocker plus as Longtobefree shared.

  • buddhastalin||

    Brave > Google spy app Chrome

  • Juice||

    Brave is unusable crap.

  • dwshelf||

    Have conservatives stopped beating their wives? What kind of headline is this, Reason?

    This libertarian conservative supports very very few mandatory aspects of an employment contract.

  • Robert||

    Ms. de Rugy's referring to conservatives' backing in the USA for allowing parents to choose to take some of their SS retirement benefits early as parental ones. No mandate there, just an extra choice. What's wrong w that?

    She's saying the drain on the SS acc't will lead to add'l pressure to make up for it in the future. But you can say that about any tax cut now. You can say that about school vouchers, i.e. that they'll produce pressure to make up for the spending taken out of the gov't school system.

  • dwshelf||

    Ms. de Rugy's referring to conservatives' backing in the USA for allowing parents to choose to take some of their SS retirement benefits early as parental ones. No mandate there, just an extra choice. What's wrong w that?

    1. That's not what the headline says, at all.
    2. The introductory paragraph seems to claim something like the headline suggests.
    3. There aren't any actual criteria for calling one's self a "conservative", beyond perhaps not being a member of the Democratic Party. Finding people who call themselves conservatives and support some idea does not mean that conservatives in any general sense back the idea. This is particularly relevant with respect to the Cato Institute.

  • Robert||

    You're right, I hadn't caught what you meant.

  • JFree||

    Except that in reality - 'conservatives' are very concerned about making sure that 'family' is supported cuz otherwise 'it takes a village' and that is either communist or Skinnerian.

    Which is why 'conservatives' are perfectly fine with mandated paid time off - as long as it applies ONLY to non-work activities that are verifiably 'family'-related - eg maternity. There is nothing new about this. It's been part of most churches doctrines for hundreds of years - is the core notion behind 'Christian Democrat' politics (which is the label for that idea in Europe) - and is a major reason why churches are often VERY skeptical about untethered 'free' markets.

    Paid time is exactly in the same vein as tax benefits for particular structures of marriage (those w kids) - or the opposition to abortion.

  • dwshelf||

    Which is why 'conservatives' are perfectly fine with mandated paid time off - as long as it applies ONLY to non-work activities that are verifiably 'family'-related - eg maternity.

    I know a lot of conservatives.

    None of them support mandatory paid maternity leave, which is a different question of course as to whether they take it when offered.

    I do understand that some conservatives believe almost anything.

  • Robert||

    In N. America, or at least the US, the pro-"family" (i.e. pro-natal) tendencies of the "right" are tempered by their anti-socialist tendencies. Probably also so in much of S. America, but not so much in Europe.

  • JFree||

    None of them support mandatory paid maternity leave

    And yet - here we are with an article that specifically identifies a ton of conservatives (and yes they ARE conservatives) who are advocating EXACTLY that. And those are supported with polling data too.

    Maybe you are conflating 'conservative' with 'libertarian'. Or maybe you think that women who are working are by definition not conservative since women should be barefoot and pregnant and at home in the kitchen preparing the meal for when family-providing hubby comes home from his job and they don't need paid time off cuz they shouldn't be getting paid anyway.

  • dwshelf||

    None of them support mandatory paid maternity leave

    And yet - here we are with an article that specifically identifies a ton of conservatives (and yes they ARE conservatives) who are advocating EXACTLY that. And those are supported with polling data too.

    I have read the article multiple times by now, and I didn't read that. Can you suggest what I somehow missed?

  • Robert||

    Several yrs. ago I formulated my theory that pro-natal, pro-military Xtian-conservative policy began in rxn to the plagues & crusades that depleted the fighting-age male popul'n of Europe.

  • dwshelf||

    The religious abortion and birth control taboo arises from the intent of religious groupings to procreate as a means to acquire dominance.

    Western civilization provided a second abortion taboo, the protection of each individual including a fetus.

    However, respect for each individual also created an inherent barrier against legal proscription of various birth reducing behaviors of actual people.

    Libertarian philosophy has no concise resolution of this conflict. The properly functioning libertarian calculator says "Not A Number".

    If "conservative" means "religious", in opposition to "libertarian", that changes things of course, with Sharia having a legitimate claim to being called conservative as any other religious practice.

  • JFree||

    Conservative really does mean culturally/ethically traditionalist. Whether overtly religious or not is less relevant. Applying 'conservative' to purely economic/market issues is simply denying what markets are - disruptive, non-ethical (not unethical just non-ethical) motives/decisions, and forcing change on people by changing the circumstances of people's lives.

  • dwshelf||

    In that context conservative doesn't yield much of a usable generalization.

  • JFree||

    Well apply that to the issue of this article - paid family leave.

    What is a conservative (a traditionalist) going to believe?

    'Family' is only an important issue for those who can already afford to take time off without pay? It's basically the same importance as privatized space flight or somesuch.

    "Family' is so important - even a basic right - that a 'good society' demonstrates that importance by doing the things that support family.

    Sure - if society will actually fall apart by implementing that, then only a nihilist will support it. But in the real world - if you can't see how conservatives (traditionalists) get on board with this sort of thing, then you are being willfully blind.

    And let me make plain - this ain't my preference/opinion. I'm just saying this sort of 'coalition of support' ain't coming out of left field.

  • CLM1227||

    Well first, the headline is misleading.

    Second, it isn't obvious that this would help what conservatives are most concerned about under the heading of "family".

    Of more concern to a wider group is keeping families together and ending policies that encourage single-parent families. Not encouraging higher birthrates among people who can't afford it. And honestly, mandated paid leave does more for single mothers who have to take leave to have a baby and may not have an income.

    Third, such policies that already exist elsewhere (like France) have barely improved birth rates, making the cost detrimental for so small a return.

    If the goal of such policy is to raise birth rates, then it will fail.

    A more likely tell for birthright decline is labor participation of women. As long as women feel pressured to put career first, birth rates will stay low - but that isn't/ should not be a government policy position but a cultural solution.

  • dwshelf||

    Of more concern to a wider group is keeping families together and ending policies that encourage single-parent families.

    Yes, that seems "conservative" to me.

    But I don't see any important lever from there to mandatory paid leave.

  • markm23||

    "As long as women feel pressured to put career first, birth rates will stay low - but that isn't/ should not be a government policy position but a cultural solution."

    It's more economic than cultural. Stay-at-home parents are rare and working parents feel pressured to put career first mainly because of economic pressures. Except for couples with significant inherited wealth, at least one stratospheric salary, one partner with a much higher earning potential than the other, or such low earning potential that both parents working would leave the family on welfare, families give up a lot of material goods when Mom stays home. I do know families that chose to have many children, making a stay at home parent necessary, but every one of them are devoutly religious - they range from devout Catholics to devout Methodists and Baptists, to Jehovah's Witnesses and Mennonites (most of my Dad's relatives), to our Amish neighbors, but every one of them chose to give up material wealth for family and religion.

  • Jalene||

    Just an aside... All of these labels to define our ideologies, our beliefs, who we think we are, all of them worthless. Pure bunkum to make ourselves feel important, better than, to set ourselves apart from each other when we are actually far more alike than we are different. There is only one label that matters, and that, dearest people, is "human." So when self-identifying conservatives, libertarians, liberals and everyone else in between choose to recognize all people as being equally worthy of the status as human and all of the benefits that title affords, that will be a good day for everyone. I don't think we'll see any good days any time soon.

  • dwshelf||

    So when self-identifying conservatives, libertarians, liberals and everyone else in between choose to recognize all people as being equally worthy of the status as human and all of the benefits that title affords, that will be a good day for everyone.

    I'm happy to recognize all humans as being equal in humanity and dignity.

  • dwshelf||

    Well apply that to the issue of this article - paid family leave.

    What is a conservative (a traditionalist) going to believe?

    Given where I think you went there, your conservative (a traditionalist) would likely have it be a felony for a women to work at all, and the man wouldn't have much use for family leave either.

  • Hank Phillips||

    Note to foreign readers: conservatives are males who support the Comstock laws and will do, say or infiltrate anything in efforts to have men with guns force women into involuntary labor.

  • dwshelf||

    In that context conservative doesn't yield much of a usable generalization.

  • Mickey Rat||

    They are trying to find a way to pander to urban and suburban sophisticates. They think that demographic wants free stuff. It is bad policy on several levels but are they wrong about the appeal?

  • CLM1227||

    Probably not. Though most suburbanites already possess jobs with maternity leave (of 6 weeks paid) or are stay/work at home moms.

  • JFree||

    Companies that have to compete for quality employees are expanding benefits, including paid time off.

    That is just babbling. 2013 survey of 2800 companies. The numbers there are no different than 50 years ago. Except fewer employees now have length-of-service where those days kick in - and companies now put a lot larger portion of their workforce into PT or gig schedules where none of that even applies.

    The most effective incentive plan I ever implemented paid off in time off not cash. Kept at least two mfg plants open. It worked cuz it incentivized those who view their jobs as jobs rather than 'careers' - who 'work to live' instead of 'live to work'. Those aren't the employees an employer 'competes' to get. They aren't the employees who NEVER take time off cuz they love the company so much. They are just the overwhelming number of potential employees.

    Henry Ford created the five day week - Why I support five days work with six days pay. His logic is alien in any board room nowadays.

    This ain't about 'mandate'. But stop pretending that this ideological babbling about how markets work in theory has a damn thing to do with how actual markets work. It just makes one clueless about WHY something like this gains traction.

  • Jalene||

    Thank you for the link to the 2013 survey. That helps put things into proper perspective. :)

  • Longtobefree||

    1. Advocating this program is not a conservative position; I suspect you mean Republican position.
    2. It was federal wage controls that brought about employer paid health insurance. That one policy has directly led to the disaster we now face in healthcare and in health insurance.

    Welcome to the revolution.

  • Robert||

    "Directly", no. Lots of different twists & turns could've been taken instead. For instance, wage controls could've led to wider rationing to hold down prices of consumer goods. Or instead of (or in add'n to) employer-paid health insurance, employer-paid food, clothing, or home rent could've been exempt from controls. Or wage controls could've quickly been repealed. Or jobs outsourced to countries where they could pay more to get better work.

    No policy ever leads directly to another.

  • soldiermedic76||

    No in this case history is pretty clear. Ford wanted to keep his company union free. FDR and his cronies passed wage control laws to benefit their union buddies because Ford paid better then union shops and the unions were pissed about it. So Ford offered health care and other benefits because he couldn't raise wages. The cause and effect is simple in this case.

  • Jalene||

    Apart from being paid, is there any more valuable benefit than having paid time off? In my opinion, no. Disclaimer: I'm biased. I spent over a decade living in England, where I had 25 days paid vacation every year no matter what job I held, despite not being a British citizen. Certainly that factored in to a slightly lower salary but it was absolutely worth the small financial hit to be able to take five weeks off of work every year, to be able to travel and to spend time with family, or just to take a break and recharge. Simply invaluable having that time to actually live and enjoy life.

    Americans are used to having little-to-no vacation time. It's part of our working culture. To even get a mere five days paid time off, many workers have to work for at least two years - one year of full-time status to even start earning paid leave, and a second year of working to earn the meager five days, albeit, those five days may be advanced at the start of the second year. There are many jobs here in America which offer no paid time off at all - I know, I've worked them in my early 20s. Jobs at restaurants, or retail for example, and many small businesses can ill-afford to offer any kind of PTO benefit. If those employers actually permit workers to take any time off, the workers don't get paid. And so for some American workers, especially those who live paycheck-to-paycheck, they take no time off even when they desperately need it. We can do a lot better, but we are unlikely to do so.

  • Brandybuck||

    There's nothing wrong with paid vacation. There's everything wrong with coerced paid vacation.

    Americans don't have a big culture of constant vacations. Which is why paid vacations simply aren't in demand. Most Americans who do have paid vacations simply don't take them. I have seventeen vacation days left for this year I have not taken. Seventeen. And I'm only going to take three of them for the upcoming holiday.

  • Jalene||

    I used to do the same thing - not take my earned vacation days -- had to sell them back when I accrued too many unused days. When I worked as a design engineer, I worked all the time, 10 hour days at a minimum, often 12 hour days (7am to 8pm with a one-hour lunch).... took work home on the weekends, or drove the 60 miles to work on a Saturday to perform tests on new designs. Never really thought about taking time off. It was all about work, and working my ass off for the company, which didn't even offer any health benefits until after five years of employment. And it wasn't until I lived in England that I discovered how foolish I had been and how important it was to take time off. It's a different culture there...

  • Brandybuck||

    But in England everyone takes vacation all at the same time so the entire country essentially closes down as everyone heads to Barcelona or Brighton.

  • Jalene||

    They really don't take their holiday at the same time, nor does the country "close down" at any point. However, I will concede to your point that families with children in school are at a massive disadvantage, because the law does not allow parents to take their kids out of school for a holiday. In that regard, many families are forced to take their holidays during school breaks only.

    Barcelona is vibrant and lovely. Brighton is a bit meh -- never understood the appeal. But it always rained when I was there, and the gulls had uncanny aim. Bring an umbrella, and use it even when it isn't raining. LOL.

  • ||

    It's France where everyone takes vacation at the same time, not England.

  • Liberty Lover||

    Wow, I didn't even realize people worked in France.

  • JFree||

    Which is why paid vacations simply aren't in demand.

    That is simply bs. Vacation time is where there is a MASSIVE disconnect between what people overtly say they want and what they actually want when you talk to people one-on-one. The reason for that disconnect is that people who ARE interested in some time off are petrified at either direct retaliation - or more commonly indirect sidetracking retaliation that will happen if they indicate that they would prefer not to be at work so much. It is social pressure in the US that creates the 'live to work' Type A mindset - not some unique genetic heritage. Most people in the US - as elsewhere - are 'work to live' Type B's. And nothing pisses off the Type A's more than the existence of the Type B - even if the Type A is always everywhere more likely to be at the top.

    When I put together PTO incentive plans - I had to struggle like hell to convince senior execs that mfg workers really did not want stock incentives or the marginal 10% of pay type bonuses - as much as they wanted an extra week or three off. Didn't matter that my plan would deliver millions of dollars in profit. They just could not comprehend that people in shitty jobs just didn't want to spend more time at work - no matter what the pay. And of course every employer is Lake Woebegon - all our jobs are less shitty than average.

  • Robert||

    At orientation every term they ask the assembled adjuncts, "Who here loves to teach?" Most hands go up. Not mine. I like to teach, but if I loved it they wouldn't have to pay me. I love coaching football, that I do for free.

  • Robert||

    I never thought about that before, but Jalene's right. Plus, conditions have been getting worse for extended vacation travel in the USA.

    More & more part-time work, where you have plenty of hours off, but not vacations. Who wants the hassle of air travel nowadays? Gov't schools now frequently are on different schedules, so when this child has a vacation the other doesn't. 2-earner families where 1 spouse is working a job where they have urgent needs, & flexibility is only on the part of the employee, not the employer. So more day trips, overnighters, & long weekends, but not weeks. Even then, people frequently see family via Skype, etc. rather than physical travel.

  • Jalene||

    Thanks. I dunno if I'm right. I just see things from a different perspective now. I'm not offering any solutions, nor am I insisting that government should be involved in regulating mandatory leave. But I personally believe that all workers deserve some amount of paid time off, but I would hesitate to put a figure on that. I don't believe that we need a law for it or that taxpayers should subsidize others' leave. Free markets provide many options for skilled workers, but even the least-skilled worker deserves the same amount of time off as the most-skilled worker. That is my opinion, and one that I know is not shared by a significant majority of people in this country. This isn't as bleeding heart liberal progressive opinion either, but of course it will be colored as such.

    And I agree that traveling here in the states has become a huge hassle. Even so, I know so many people who have no desire to travel anywhere at all. They're happy staying home and watching TV.

  • Qsl||

    My $0.02.

    The few places I've worked that had paid time off made it such an excruciating pain to utilize, even if you were allotted two weeks, it ended up being divvied out into several long weeks throughout the year at a moment's notice or a catastrophic end of the year blitz where managers frantically scheduled people they had denied in the previous 10 months. It was a mess.

    Another place I worked offered something more akin to a gig, where I could take scheduled unpaid time off in great heaping chunks, but still had a job to return to. That was far more flexible and useful, even though it wasn't paid.

    Point being I think people get caught up in the paid aspect more than the time off aspect. These should be mutually exclusive I think, with different means of compensating people as they require.

  • DarrenM||

    I have no problem with compensation in the form of paid vacation. However, it's a very bad idea to force everyone to accept this. Many people prefer to work for more pay. Paid vacation means less productivity, which means less overall prosperity. Nothing is free.

  • JFree||

    Actually vacation often (usually - in the US) does not mean lower productivity. It merely means less time at work.

    I agree that the distinction is virtually impossible to explain to those who don't want to listen to that. Tech in particular is notorious for pretending that beanbag cushions and 'bring your dog to work' is a way of creating a workplace where no one could ever possibly want to go home. Which they define as a 'greatest company to work for'. And that therefore equals productivity. It kinda works too - for single employees in their 20's - until they burnout.

  • Brandybuck||

    Cluestick: There are no more conservatives in the country. Or at least none that matter. The entire Republican Party took a hard left turn into No-Nothing Populism with the nomination of Trump. Burkean ideology is dead. If Bill Buckley were alive he would be denounced as a pansy liberal. Even the Sainted Ronaldus Magnus would not survive long in today's Republican Party. And the various "conservative" third parties have become absolutely bonkers.

    The only actual conservatives left in the country, all twelve of them, have been chased off of the media circuit.

  • Robert||

    Conservatism—"losing as slowly as possible", maintaining the status quo—is always on shifting ground, so if you're measuring by the same issues, conservatives are always disappearing. Really they just reappear in a new place.

  • DarrenM||

    This is a problem with leftists. They think "conservative" today is identical to "conservative" of a hundred years ago. Some do this knowingly. Some just aren't that bright and merely regurgitate what they are told.

  • Robert||

    At some point, when the ground has shifted far enough, those still stuck are no longer conservatives but reactionaries.

  • Robert||

    Wait long enough, & the progressives catch up to the reactionaries. My favorite current example is "gender", whereby progressives want to go back to the old sex stereotypes.

  • Hank Phillips||

    I thought paid leave was something Republicans gave First Responders™ for shooting brown people or potheads.

  • Brad W||

    There's no money in the "social security trust fund" to spend. It's all just IOUs that are nothing more than a claim on general revenues. Every dollar of the "trust fund" is spent out of today's taxes or new government deficits.

  • tommhan||

    It is not an IOU but bought government bonds or securities that are the same as we sell to everyone. Like it or not we have the right to cash out those bonds to pay the citizens what they nvested in.

  • PubliusVA||

    But they are "cashed out" with general tax revenues, the same as if there were no bonds in the trust fund to pay benefits with.

  • Spookk||

    How about we stop subsidizing breeders in any way? Too many humans now.

  • Spookk||

    How about we stop subsidizing breeders in any way? Too many humans now.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First it isn't mandatory it's voluntary. Second the reason some in the GOP is pushing this is to get ahead of the situation. This is the next ACA. The GOP has to be seen to have a plan or look like the idiots they did when they were unabls to offer any credible replacement or alternative to the ACA. Third, the GOP (I am not using conservative on purpose) has long wanted to introduce some level of personal choice into Social Security, but every time they have the Democrats and their allies in AARP have painted it as an end to Social Security (even the Bush plan which specifically only applied to younger people). If this works then they will have more ammunition to push for something similar to what Bush pushed for.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First it isn't mandatory it's voluntary. Second the reason some in the GOP is pushing this is to get ahead of the situation. This is the next ACA. The GOP has to be seen to have a plan or look like the idiots they did when they were unabls to offer any credible replacement or alternative to the ACA. Third, the GOP (I am not using conservative on purpose) has long wanted to introduce some level of personal choice into Social Security, but every time they have the Democrats and their allies in AARP have painted it as an end to Social Security (even the Bush plan which specifically only applied to younger people). If this works then they will have more ammunition to push for something similar to what Bush pushed for.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First it isn't mandatory it's voluntary. Second the reason some in the GOP is pushing this is to get ahead of the situation. This is the next ACA. The GOP has to be seen to have a plan or look like the idiots they did when they were unabls to offer any credible replacement or alternative to the ACA. Third, the GOP (I am not using conservative on purpose) has long wanted to introduce some level of personal choice into Social Security, but every time they have the Democrats and their allies in AARP have painted it as an end to Social Security (even the Bush plan which specifically only applied to younger people). If this works then they will have more ammunition to push for something similar to what Bush pushed for.

  • soldiermedic76||

    First it isn't mandatory it's voluntary. Second the reason some in the GOP is pushing this is to get ahead of the situation. This is the next ACA. The GOP has to be seen to have a plan or look like the idiots they did when they were unabls to offer any credible replacement or alternative to the ACA. Third, the GOP (I am not using conservative on purpose) has long wanted to introduce some level of personal choice into Social Security, but every time they have the Democrats and their allies in AARP have painted it as an end to Social Security (even the Bush plan which specifically only applied to younger people). If this works then they will have more ammunition to push for something similar to what Bush pushed for.

  • soldiermedic76||

    However, the squirrels are mandatory.

  • tommhan||

    They are addicted to spending.

  • PG23COLO||

    Conservatives share liberal belief in government solutions but they lack the enthusiasm of liberals for the growth of government. That's why they look so phony and insincere when debating liberals about the need for "compassionate" government.

  • Jagdish||

    I think you should to know about battery car for kids here that I have shared with you

  • Jakee308||

    They're not conservatives, that's why. And this sort of fiddling is what has put SS on the road to being insolvent sooner than it should have.

    SS was meant as a safety net for those who were forced to retire, are unable to work any longer and were not able to save or put anything away for their retirement years.

    It wasn't meant to be a socialist wedge or support those who should be able to afford their own day care and other nonsense.

    The Dems love it because that's how they roll. They don't care if it goes insolvent as that will mean even more people dependent on the government and it's largess with other peoples money.

    It all needs to be scrapped and start over again and no unionization of bureaucracy and no career politicians.

    And I'm on SS and realize that doing so will put me on the streets soon to die. Doesn't matter this crap has to be stopped.

  • ||

    essentially started three weeks past and that i makes $385 benefit $135 to $a hundred and fifty consistently simply by working at the internet from domestic. I made ina long term! "a great deal obliged to you for giving American explicit this remarkable opportunity to earn more money from domestic. This in addition coins has adjusted my lifestyles in such quite a few manners by which, supply you!". go to this website online domestic media tech tab for extra element thank you .

    www.Mesalary.com

  • BILKER||

    please in any future article include the names of the republicans and conservatives that support this idiocy. that way WE THE PEOPLE can contact these socialistic asshats directly. thank you.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online