Thread: Republicans don’t think government is big enough. Now they want ‘Ivankacare’

Republicans don’t think government is big enough. Now they want ‘Ivankacare’

Daniel Horowitz · August 3, 2018


While Jared Kushner is promoting the Koch agenda for Willie-Horton-style jailbreak bills, his wife and co-president, Ivanka, is successfully getting one Republican after another to promote a new massive entitlement for paid family leave. As if we don’t have enough market interventions, government programs, and debt.



Here’s a novel idea: how about we eliminate all of the current government policies that force many families to have both parents working full time even while the kids are young? How about we undo the policies that drive down wages and drive up the cost of health care, food, fuel, and other vital services and then let’s see how family finances look? How about we decrease the debt, which is about the take a bite out of wage growth?


We would be better off as a country if we at least had a Republican Party that was merely at peace with every iota of the 100-year buildup of the federal leviathan without growing it. Yet, every time Republicans assume power and promise to reverse course, they not only codify the policies of the Left, they seek to grow them and venture into new areas of the economy and private life. This is what Margaret Thatcher often referred to as “the ratchet effect” to explain the one directional progress of liberalism when the Left is in power and the inability to reverse one iota of that momentum when so-called conservatives are in power. The ratchet only turns in one direction.


Adding a new entitlement while exacerbating the decline of another


However, Republicans always have clever nuances to sell Democrat ideas as conservative. Yesterday, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla. introduced a bill (S. 3345), with Progressive Ivanka at his side, to create a new federal entitlement to paid family leave. They are promising to pay for it by raiding another program that is slated to go bankrupt – Social Security. They tell us that rather than creating a new funding stream, those seeking paid family leave will have the option of drawing upon their future Social Security benefits and forfeiting when they retire the amount they prematurely tapped in their early years. A summary of the billsays parents taking 8 weeks of paid leave at over 70 percent of their wages would, in turn, delay their Social Security collection by 3-6 months. Rep. Ann Wagner, R-M.O. promised to introduce a House version of the bill in September after they bankrupt us with the budget and the farm bill.


Isn’t this idea so clever and innovative? Raise your hand if you believe for a second that once we allow a new entitlement to pop out of the genie’s bottle it somehow won’t become its own fiscal mandate minus the funding from Social Security. Also, raise your hand if you believe we have the guts to deny these people their Social Security once this generation of young parents drawing upon the perspective family leave program reaches retirement. Finally, raise your hand if you think that once we revolutionize the idea of tapping early Social Security for the purpose of family leave that somehow it won’t become the new piggy bank for funding college, cars, and mortgages. That’s next.


This is a classic case of “I’ll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today,” from the taxpayer perspective. Or more aptly put from the entitlement perspective, “I’ll gladly give you a free hamburger today, and find a way to pay for it on Tuesday.” Who knows? Maybe Rubio will resurrect his idea of plugging the gap in Social Security he will inevitably exacerbate with this proposal by importing more extremely talented and affluent illegal aliens.


Anyone who hasn’t had their head under a rock for the past few decades understands that the Social Security Trust Fund – both the old age and disability accounts – is a Ponzi scheme. There is no pot of money earmarked for Mrs. Smith taking family leave today ensconced in Al Gore’s infamous lockbox. There is already an over $13 trillion shortfall over the next 75 years and they are paying today’s seniorswith the payroll taxes of today’s workers. Thus, the theory of taking your own money out of your own account (to the extent this program somehow wouldn’t grow legs and get its own appropriations) would have worked under the original promise of Social Security or if we would convert the entire program to private accounts. But under the existing structure it will merely bankrupt the current program earlier because today’s workers will now be drawing upon that existing limited pool of cash.
In this sense, the idea of pairing the new entitlement against Social Security is even worse than just merely creating paid leave in its own right because it will exacerbate the flaws of both while also using the misconception of a free funding source to stimulate new entitlement ideas across the economic spectrum.


Also, it’s important to remember that the social construct of the program is built off the premise of first working your career and then receiving benefits upon retirement. You could theoretically, under this proposal, have a young mother who only paid a few years into the system collect benefits and then remain a homemaker for the remainder of her career and never pay into the system. Again, granting access to the funds before paying into it is a shaky foundation if your goal is to sell the proposition as some sort of private flexible savings account rather than a welfare program.


Hurting women in the labor force rather than breaking down existing barriers


Furthermore, like every market intervention, often the market distortions to the private economy inherent in government programs are even worse than the budgetary cost. One can only imagine the cascading labor market effects of this free source incentivizing more time off. It will likely hurt women by surreptitiously discouraging employers from hiring or promoting women of childbearing age to managerial positions.


In fact, we need not imagine the effect. Most European countries have a paid family leave program. According to a 2013 analysis of the National Bureau of Economic Research, women in countries with paid leave were half as likely to be managers than in the U.S. because of these market distortions. Talk about a government-induced glass ceiling on women! Introducing this program to America will engender further government mandates on the labor market to “fix” the problems it creates with devaluing the utility of hiring women.


Indeed, this program is the embodiment of everything wrong with government and everything wrong to the GOP approach and response to progressive agitation.


If we had a conservative party in Washington, they’d be conducting an audit of everything a young couple has to purchase in order to function. Whether it be health care, cars, housing, food, or fuel, there is a government regulation and market distortion that forces them to pay thousands more a year on vital goods and services.


Health care alone is a killer and until we repeal Obamacare and the many other government distortions that handed the industry over to a cartel monopoly, nothing we do on the entitlement will bring enough relief to families. Also, it’s important to remember that because of the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), companies with more than 50 employees are already required to hold open jobs for maternity leave for 12 weeks while maintaining health insurance benefits. With health care being a dumpster fire and the cost of insurance skyrocketing on employers, incentivizing workers to take even more time off while still being covered will further depress wages or disincentivize employers from hiring women who are likely to have children.


This is yet another reason why we need to fix this crony government tethering of health care to medical insurance and medical insurance to employment through the tax code before complaining about the cost of child-bearing. The $300 billion annual handout to the insurance cartel boxes out individuals from the insurance market – people who want to pursue their own dreams with flexible work schedules, particularly young mothers.


There’s also a ton more to do on the regulatory side. According to the Competitive Enterprise Institute, federal regulations cost families nearly $15,000 per year. Trump has done a good job preempting Obama’s impossible increase in Corporate Average Fuel Economy (café) standards on auto-makers from taking effect. But why doesn’t Marco Rubio propose a bill to repeal the existing standards? Creating such options would save young couples thousands of dollars on auto purchases.


How about busting the government-education cartel monopoly on higher education, which saddles young folks with debt? How about vitiating the government regulations on flexible labor arrangements that allow employers to offer more flexible work options to employees and easing occupational licensing laws that are particularly pernicious to stay-at-home moms looking to become entrepreneurs?


Ironically, it’s the policies and culture of Ivanka’s circle of influence that has both driven up the cost of living and discouraged stay-at-home-motherhood during the early years of childhood. The lack of childbearing is much more a result of cultural declines beginning with the decline in marriage rather than a financial problem. But the debt that is created, which depresses wages, from programs such as Ivankacare, certainly contributes to the problem.


Why do we always operate solely within the paradigm of the Left? They are doing a good enough job on their own promoting their values without the assistance of those who campaign on a competing agenda.

https://www.conservativereview.com/news/republicans-dont-think-government-is-big-enough-now-they-want-ivankacare/

NO PAID FAMILY LEAVE!

SET UP A PAYROLL ACCOUNT FOR "FMLA SAVINGS"

YOU CONTRIBUTE TO IT WITH YOUR OWN MONEY!

NO MORE FREEBIES!

THERE ARE MSA MEDICAL SAVINGS ACCOUNTS, 401(K), IRA, EDUCATION ACCOUNTS...ADD FMLA TO THE LIST YOU CAN CONTRIBUTE TO OUT OF YOUR OWN PAYCHECK!

YOU HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE A FAMILY...YOU DO NOT HAVE A RIGHT TO FORCE ME, THE EMPLOYER OR TAXPAYER TO PAY FOR IT!

But I don't think the way they have this set up that you, the employer or taxpayer will be paying for it. Taxpayers don't fund Social Security, workers and employers fund Social Security, but on this program, only the employees share of the payroll tax is used to fund the benefit. I pointed this out earlier based on the report in the article. We'll learn more about it when the bill comes out.

Something I want every American Citizen, no matter your philosophy, your ideologies, your politics, your personality, your religion, or any other "whatever", to think about. Most of us here are older, we've had our shot, we've ruled this country for the past many decades as voters, as business people, as workers, as investors, as opinion putforthers, as leaders, as followers, as everything and look at the gawd damn mess we've made of it? We've let over 30 million illegal aliens come into our country and breed, use up our resources, drain our coffers, flood our schools, trash our neighborhoods, while the useless government charges us billions of dollars a day funding it. We've let corrupt and treasonous politicians and globalist profiteers cost us 70,000 manufacturing plants, tens of millions of good jobs with benefits and trillions of dollars of lost wealth from "free trade treason". We've let the US government print trillions of dollars of useless money to replace that lost wealth and we call it "national debt".

We all did that people. We let it happen. It's our problem to fix and cure, but in the meantime, we have a new generation of Americans coming down the pike who will actually be the ones to ultimately pay for our mistakes that none of US who caused it are going to live long enough to fix ourselves. They're the ones who are going to be working their asses off to pay our retirements, to pay our national debt we used willingly or unwillingly to float this economy because of bad trade and immigration policies.

To me, the least we can do for this next generation is let these young mothers and/or fathers trade 3 months of partial family leave pay to be home with their little darling American baby for 6 months of retirement, so they don't go broke in the process of having a baby. These are working American mothers, these aren't the moochers, these aren't illegal aliens, these aren't the parasites, these are our daughters, nieces, grand-daughters, cousins and those of our friends and fellow Americans. If you ask me, they're the one thing we've gotten totally right so far. Lets don't stop now. This next generation of American mothers are going to awesome, all you have to do is talk with them, watch them deal with all they deal with, how they address issues, work, friendships, and while I don't agree with all their politics all the time, they still listen and want to learn and are seeing through the actions of Donald Trump that "hey, damn, Mom, Auntie and Grandma, were right, look at this economy turn around!!

These are our young hard-working American citizens who we want to breed more American citizens. I don't know if this program is the best program or if there are other ideas or ways to achieve at least something that makes it a little easier for them, and I don't give a hoot about what they're doing in other "developed countries", but I know first hand that this issue causes a lot of good talented hard-working American women to delay having a baby, because they really can't afford it the way it is now and when you delay too long it means having children when you're much older which makes it harder and makes you a much older mother and grandmother, and possibly never a living grandmother or great-grandmother. Is that fair to the generation who will pay to have off our debts, solve our problems, and support US in retirement? No, it's not. It's not fair at all.

Again, I don't know if this is the right or best way to do it, I remember on the campaign trail Ivanka was pursuing using unemployment insurance to pay for it, which is insurance purchased and paid for by employers and doesn't involve taxpayers. Not sure what happened to that one, but of the two, I actually like the Social Security plan better from what I know about it so far.

NO social security funds UNTIL retirement age. It is already going broke.

They can fund FMLA with their own money and budget for their own family needs.

This is out of control.

Millions of pregnant women are moochers on welfare and food stamps. We going to let them work a year, get on paid FMLA, not go back to work? NO

We are going to let 10 - 20 million people take SS benefits a year for the next 20 or so years? NO WAY!

Just how many births are in this country...millions...this is NOT a good program to implement.

So they take SS for every time they give birth...4,5,6 times? NO WAY!

This is the most absurd idea ever.

LEAVE OUR SOCIAL SECURITY ALONE

YOU WANT TO BREED...YOU PAY FOR IT.

Then be uniform and end that eternally absurd "developmentally delayed" SS program for premature babies whose mother's get a Social Security check every month from the time they're born until the child turns 18. I just learned about it last year from a tenant who claimed she had SD income and I asked for what? She said for her son, and I said what on earth for? She said he was born premature which entitles her as the mother to receive a SS disability check every month until he turns 18. I thought she was lying so I checked it out and it's true. Unbelievable. And of course the mother didn't even work.

Originally Posted by Judy

Then be uniform and end that eternally absurd "developmentally delayed" SS program for premature babies whose mother's get a Social Security check every month from the time they're born until the child turns 18. I just learned about it last year from a tenant who claimed she had SD income and I asked for what? She said for her son, and I said what on earth for? She said he was born premature which entitles her as the mother to receive a SS disability check every month until he turns 18. I thought she was lying so I checked it out and it's true. Unbelievable. And of course the mother didn't even work.

The above is not an accurate statement...

Can You Receive SSI Benefits for Premature Children?


The Social Security Administration (SSA) does provide Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits to some infants born prematurely; however, premature birth is not the primary qualifier for SSI benefits. Instead, it’s weight at birth that determines whether or not an infant qualifies for disability benefits.
Any infant weighing less than 2 lbs. 10 oz. can receive SSI based on his or her low birth weight. Additionally, infants weighing anywhere between 2 lbs. 10 oz. and 4 lbs. 6 oz. at birth can potentially qualify for SSI benefits. It’s important to understand though that the SSA’s eligibility requirements are defined by your child’s gestational age at birth and his or her corresponding birth weight.

Gestational Age (in weeks)	Birth Weight
33	2 lbs. 15 oz.
34	3 lbs. 5 oz.
35	3 lbs. 12 oz.
36	4 lbs. 2 oz.
37 to 40	4 lbs. 6 oz

Your infant may qualify for SSI benefits in three ways:

• under the listing for low birth weight as long as your child is 6 months old or under
• under another listed medical condition
• by “functionally equaling” a listed condition

Once approved for SSI, whether under the low birth weight listing or under another listed disability, your child’s claim will undergo periodic continuing disability reviews (CDRs). CDRs are check-ins conducted by the SSA to determine if your child still qualifies benefits.
For infants that qualify under the low birth weight listing, the first CDR will happen before your child is one year old. If still suffering from significant complications due to his or her low birth weight and/or premature birth, your infant will continue to receive SSI benefits.
If your child is not suffering from any significant developmental delays at one year of age and does not have any other debilitating complications, then SSI benefits will end when your child reaches his or her first birthday.
If your child’s health complications are serious enough to meet the SSA’s listing criteria for other conditions, then SSI benefits will continue following the CDR. Among the complications that can qualify your child for continued SSI benefits are hearing loss, vision loss, growth impairment, asthma, congenital heart defects and disease, digestive tract disorders, and diabetes, among others.

https://www.disabilitybenefitscenter...ature-children

What wasn't accurate about it?

Originally Posted by Judy

What wasn't accurate about it?

Read your statement, then read the info from the link.

I honestly do not understand why we would ever have a program like this funded out of Social Security for children born premature or otherwise. SSA is a workers program, not a child care program for people's children. Makes no sense at all to me and none of this program is offset at all by anything.

Originally Posted by stoptheinvaders

Read your statement, then read the info from the link.

I don't really care. You obviously are familiar with the program for some reason, I am not, never heard of such an absurd thing before I learned about it from a tenant.