First came unpaid "family leave" and, notwithstanding
denials to the contrary, we all knew where that was going: Who can afford to take 12 weeks off without pay?
Well, here it is at last, "paid" family leave.
Paid for out of our tax over-payment -- the pols' "surplus."
"Take a little where you can ... then come back for the rest
later." A classic example of government incrementalism.
And that darned annoying surplus that's supposed to be
returned to the taxpayers ... well the pols can't have that, it must be spent, somehow, anywhere, fast. September's creeping up
on them, when they'll have no option but to return it.
But what happens when even the current surplus doesn't
provide enough cash to fund an entitlement program that - as all entitlement programs inevitably do - expands beyond
initial cost predictions created to achieve foot-in-the-door acceptance?
Like we don't know.
 |
|
Chip Ford |
The Boston Herald
Thursday, August 2, 2001
Birmingham unveils parental leave plan
by Ellen J. Silberman
Senate President Thomas F. Birmingham yesterday waded into the debate on paid parental
leave with a pilot program that would offer new parents 12 weeks off without raising taxes.
"We have to do more than pay lip service," Birmingham said, describing his plan as fixing a
"hole in the social safety net."
"Every other first-world country has a provision like this," said Birmingham, a Chelsea
Democrat expected to run for governor.
Paid family leave has become a hot issue on Beacon Hill with acting Gov. Jane M. Swift
putting in part-time hours on her own fully paid, $2,500-a-week "working maternity leave."
Birmingham's plan, which the Senate is expected to approve today, would allow parents of
newborn or newly adopted children to collect up to half their salaries for up to 12 weeks.
The Senate would use $70 million in surplus funds left over from last year's budget as a down
payment on a three-year pilot program. After that, funding would come from the Medical
Security Trust Fund, a little-used account intended to pay medical benefits for the
unemployed. The goal would be to ultimately create a permanent family leave program.
Senate Minority Leader Brian P. Lees (R-East Longmeadow) praised Birmingham for
dropping an earlier proposal that would have tapped the Unemployment Insurance Trust
Fund for parental leave benefits.
"That is certainly a huge step in the right direction for workers and businesses," Lees said.
But the Swift administration, which is working on its own parental leave plan, quickly
rejected the Senate's plan as underfunded.
"It runs out of money after three years," said Secretary of Administration and Finance
Stephen P. Crosby. "It's an unfunded mandate (after that)."
Swift administration officials briefly considered creating an extensive temporary disability
insurance system funded with a tax increase, but backed away once the plan became public.
Swift again yesterday promised to unveil her own plan soon.
House Speaker Thomas M. Finneran (D-Mattapan) has proposed using tax credits to
encourage companies to offer family leave benefits. And the AFL-CIO recently promised to
take its proposal for a $20-per-worker tax on employers to the ballot if
lawmakers don't endorse a paid parent leave bill.
NOTE: In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this
material is distributed without profit or payment to those who have expressed a prior
interest in receiving this information for non-profit research and educational purposes
only. For more information go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml