Just because I mostly write about progressive socialist democrats, their corrupt and toxic agenda, and their idiotic ideas, does not mean that I will not point out the idiocy coming from Republican Senators…
How absolutely idiotic do you have to be to take a program, Social Security, that is on the verge of bankruptcy and expand the benefits to advance a political agenda? Especially when it deprives the alleged “trust fund” of paid-in funds needed to keep the government’s promise to the senior citizens already receiving benefits or about to receive benefits?
When this proposed program allegedly does is to balance an early withdrawal (at lower pay rates) by extending the time at which an individual (with higher pay rates) can start withdrawing regular (not disability) retirement funds -- to achieve a neutral impact on the Social Security program?
There are apparently few restrictions on the program limiting the disbursal of funds to legal American citizens although the program provides that the individual has already paid a minimum of 4 quarters (1 year) or a maximum of 12 quarters (3 years) into the system? There is no mention of fraud controls, enforcement mechanisms, or other safeguards.
Rubio Unveils Bill Giving Parents an Option for Paid Family Leave
At a press conference with U.S. Representative Ann Wagner (R-MO), U.S. Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) today unveiled the Economic Security for New Parents Act, legislation that creates an option for new parents to pull forward a portion of their Social Security to use for paid parental leave after the birth or adoption of a child.
Specifically, the bill allows parents to use the benefit to take at least two months of parental leave, which is enough to finance two months of leave at up to 70 percent of wages for nearly all parents making below median family income. ‘'
Many parents, especially those with low incomes, will be able to finance three months of leave or longer with the amount of the benefit, which is transferable between households.
Conservatives sounding like progressives …
Independent Women's Forum (IWF) applauds the release of Senator Marco Rubio's new bill, the Economic Security for New Parents Act, which would give all workers the option to access paid parental leave following the birth or adoption of a child, without burdening taxpayers.
The bill is modeled after IWF's January 2018 policy paper proposing modernizing an existing government program that workers already pay into–Social Security–to give them access to benefits they've already earned.[OCS: Like most legislation, it arrives in a pre-packaged form from special interests, be they lobbyists, think tanks, or agenda-driven foundations.]
The Economic Security for New Parents Act is designed to be self-financing, as workers who voluntarily opt-in will receive early Social Security benefits for parental leave in exchange for delaying the collection of retirement benefits by an equal amount of time. Because of this tradeoff, the plan will have little effect on Social Security's long run finances and will not change anything about retirement benefits for those who do not elect to use this new option. It does not expand the size of government; instead, it injects more flexibility and freedom into a program that already exists.[OCS: Without an actuarial analysis and scoring by the CBO, one can not really determine whether or not the program will be self-financing or impose greater burdens on those already receiving social security. As for expanding the size of the government, one can always assume that, like all government programs, there will be a significant amount of waste, fraud, and abuse. All of which demands monitoring, investigation, and follow-up. With additional unionized government employees being required.]
The Social Security parental leave approach is built on the idea of personal responsibility and fairness. Workers who take this new benefit are trading one benefit for another. A mother or father who takes leave once would delay eligibility for Social Security's normal retirement benefits by about three months, so they would still be eligible to retire at a young age compared to expected longevity. <Source>
Why is it that we are punishing businesses by demanding they keep specific skilled jobs open for workers who decide to take parental leave? Who will make up for the lost productivity or possibly errors introduced into the system when skilled employees are on leave? For those who compare this to taking a vacation, let us not forget, the employee is still eligible for vacation leave.
What happens if the woman decided to have one child per year and then divorces the husband years later? What happens when older men impregnate younger women? Nobody knows since, like most congressional legislation, the details are left up to the administrative agencies of the Executive Branch of government to put forth administrative rules and regulations.
The fact that there is no money in the Social Security fund and that the payment of any form of early benefits will probably delay the reform that is crucial to the survival of the system.
In the past, the GOP has put forth reform that would grandfather anyone fifty and older into the old system, bump the retirement age upward, and like progressives, employ some forms of means testing (in reality, stealing from the rich). A non-starter in past years.
I would be much more pleased if “Little Marco” crafted a bill calling for the reduction of government spending and started paying down the debt that threatens to crush the next generation.
We are so screwed.
"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius