In 2018, the New York Times discussed a proposed family leave policy authored by Marco Rubio:
The plan backed by Mr. Rubio (and soon to be introduced in the House by Representative Ann Wagner, Republican of Missouri) is much more comprehensive. But it still makes parents trade one benefit for another.
It would allow a parent to draw from Social Security benefits to take at least two months of paid time off at around 40 to 70 percent of current pay. But those parents would then have to delay retirement or reduce their Social Security benefits to cover the cost of the parental leave.
The Urban Institute found that taking 12 weeks at half pay would mean forgoing 25 weeks of retirement or reducing monthly checks by 3 percent.
I won’t discuss the overall merits of this plan. But I believe that both its conservative supporters and its progressive critics are mistaken about one aspect of the proposal. Senator Rubio likes the fact that the plan is “paid for” by future reductions in Social Security. Progressive critics find that aspect to be punitive. I find it completely non-credible.
I suspect that the plan would be quite popular with young mothers, as a cost to be paid 30 or 40 years in the future hardly seems like something worth worrying about today. More importantly, many people might rationally reach the conclusion that the threat would never be carried out. After all, the government has previously played this sort of shell game with expensive new programs supposedly “paid for” out of future taxes that are likely to be unpopular and that get repealed before taking effect. Remember the “Cadillac tax”?
I suspect that in the 2060s, the population of developing countries will be declining due to low birth rates. At that time, I doubt policymakers will want to punish mothers who opted to have children in the 2020s by giving them reduced Social Security benefits relative to those families that chose to remain childless. (If cuts to Social Security are made at that time, I suspect they will affect affluent retirees.)
Politicians care much more about their pet projects getting enacted than they do about long run budget issues. Thus they are willing to adopt almost any sort of financing gimmick or trickery if they think it will help to get the bill through Congress.
The NYT editorial writer (Bryce Covert) opposed Rubio’s plan. I suspect that if she understood that threat to reduce future Social Security benefits would not carried out, then she might favor the plan.
READER COMMENTS
Kevin Corcoran
Jul 21 2022 at 4:20pm
I agree. The idea that current policy costs will be offset on the hope that future politicians will make unpopular choices when the time comes inspires very little confidence. It’s not theoretically impossible, but I wouldn’t seriously count on it.
MarkW
Jul 22 2022 at 6:55am
I suspect that if she understood that threat to reduce future Social Security benefits would not carried out, then she might favor the plan.
She probably does, but still wouldn’t. First of all, it’s a Republican plan, and therefore unsupportable. But beyond that, people will evaluate the plan now based on what it says will happen, not what she expects will actually happen. And generally pro-government folks on the left can’t afford to be openly cynical about government not keeping future promises. Such an attitude would tend to undermine support for other ‘get the goodies now, pay for it someday’ proposals that she would generally favor. So, no, I think the NY Times is bound to take such proposals at face value even if writers’ personal opinions differ.
Scott Sumner
Jul 22 2022 at 3:39pm
“She probably does, but still wouldn’t. First of all, it’s a Republican plan, and therefore unsupportable.”
This seems like a simplistic or cartoonish view of the reporter. If you have evidence of her lack of character, you should provide it. If not, there’s no reason to impugn her motives.
MarkW
Jul 23 2022 at 7:33am
To me, her article reads like the work of a down-the-line, NY Times progressive. There’s nothing in it that deviates from the party line. I don’t think this is because she feels compelled to follow the party line, but because it represents her worldview. If you do a google search on her, you’ll see that she’s probably even to the left of the typical NY Times opinion writer (e.g. also contributing writer for ‘The Nation’ and ‘The Intercept’).
I’m not impugning her motives, just making predictions based on her evident worldview. The chances of her recommending support for a Republican proposal ever, of any kind, seem vanishingly low. Yes, I think she’s that partisan (I see she’s had three pieces published in the past week — one arguing in favor of continuing pandemic rent assistance, one claiming that racism is the reason for our weak safety net, and one touting the benefits of bail reform). She seems earnestly, straightforwardly in favor of expanding government benefits in general. So I just don’t see someone like her writing a wink-wink, nudge-nudge piece about how we should strategically ally with Republicans to get the benefits now and plan on wiggling out of paying for them later.
At that time, I doubt policymakers will want to punish mothers who opted to have children in the 2020s by giving them reduced Social Security benefits relative to those families that chose to remain childless.
What about relative to those families who had kids but sucked it up and took unpaid leave or put their newborn in daycare and quickly returned to work? I don’t think it’s a slam dunk that the SS reductions would be reversed any more than I think that general student-load forgiveness is a foregone conclusion. Possible, yes, but not certain.
Scott Sumner
Jul 23 2022 at 8:20pm
“I’m not impugning her motives”
If you suggest that she’d reject a policy merely because of who proposed it, then you are.
Bob
Jul 23 2022 at 9:44pm
I believe his argument is that she is such a rabid progressive that her prior beliefs and disposition make it extremely unlikely she will be able to fairly judge a republican plan, even if her motives are sincere. I believe studies have showed how many people vote based on party affiliation, not policy. She, like all humans, is tempted to jump to the conclusion that agrees with her years and years of prior beliefs: Republicans and their policies are evil and racist. This says nothing about her motives
This is similar to how you probably have sincere motives, but aren’t really trying to understand Mark’s point or claim. Instead, you feel compelled to pedantically defend a progressive from a common sense claim. Meanwhile, you hypocritcally impugn Rubio’s motives in the second to last paragraph without providing any evidence. The reason for this, I guess, is because you identify yourself to be a non-woke free-market leftist. You certainly agree with them on a lot of non-economic issues.
Scott Sumner
Jul 24 2022 at 12:48pm
In your responses, you and Mark are merely displaying your own biases. You seem to think that progressives are biased and that you see the world as it actually is.
Yes, I impugn the motives of many politicians (but not Liz Cheney) and have abundant evidence in support of this hypothesis.
“I guess, is because you identify yourself to be a non-woke free-market leftist.”
Really? Reagan was my favorite president, at least among those I experienced. You really think I see myself as a leftist?
I’ve spent my life fighting two great evils—nationalism and socialism.
Bob
Jul 24 2022 at 9:41pm
Yes, I believe I see the world as it is and am less biased than progressives.
I believe free markets and individual liberty are objectively the correct way to organize society. Thus I think progressives are objectively wrong. In my opinion, bias is one way to explain why they believe their false beliefs. They have many biases which prevent them from being rationally persuaded by the facts and logic that invariably lead one to free markets and individual liberty. This explains, for example, why many of them are obsessed with things completely irrelevant to economics and ethics, such as race or gender.
And btw, I *will* impugn the motives of the NYT editors. Among other examples, they have been basically silent on the US-backed Saudi-led genocide of Houthis over the last several years, even during the Trump administration where it would behoove them to dunk on Trump. There is a reason for this. And it’s why you should never go to NYT or other corporate media for foreign policy.
Also, I apologize for calling you a leftist. I didn’t mean that as an insult and in any case it is not accurate. I just meant that I perceive (perhaps wrongly) some of your priorities and value scales to sometimes be similar to center-leftists’.
MarkW
Jul 25 2022 at 7:25am
You seem to think that progressives are biased and that you see the world as it actually is.
I do think both progressives and conservatives are biased by partisan team politics and the NY Times opinion writer in this case especially so because her biases are also key to her continued ability to earn a living by selling articles to left-leaning publications. Her worldview, group affinities, and economic incentives are all aligned.
So, yes, as a libertarian-leaning independent who hasn’t cast a vote for a D or R presidential candidate for many cycles and dislikes both major parties (while not being much of a fan of the L party either), I do think I am less biased in evaluating Republican and Democratic policy proposals — I just don’t have a rooting interest.
Scott Sumner
Jul 25 2022 at 12:58pm
Bob, You said:
“I believe free markets and individual liberty are objectively the correct way to organize society. Thus I think progressives are objectively wrong. ”
What does the word “objectively” add to this sentence? You are telling us what you believe. So is she.
Bob
Jul 26 2022 at 2:53pm
Some people believe in truth or moral relativism, and even economic relativism such as Marx’s “Bourgeoisie logic” vs “Proletariat logic”. So ‘objective’ is just meant to indicate I disagree with such relativism.
nobody.really
Jul 22 2022 at 11:38am
Thanks for this analysis. I rarely read the news; and when I do hear a news broadcast, I get depressed about the lack of Irishmen involved. That’s why I like to hear about policies from that fine Irish lad, Mark O’Rubio.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 22 2022 at 1:19pm
Delaying receiving “retirement” benefits is a good in itself as it helps undermine the idea of age-based retirement.
That said, the Rubio proposals still relies on financing the benefit with the wage tax and that is bad. We ought to finance things like “retirement” subsidized health insurance, unemployment insurance, and family leave with a consumption tax, a VAT.
Thomas Lee Hutcheson
Jul 23 2022 at 10:20am
The important criticism of Sen. Rubio’s plan is that the benefit is financed with a taxon wages. If paid parental leave is desirable, it should be financed in the same way as retirement and disability benefits, health insurance subsidies, and unemployment insurance should be financed, with a VAT, not a wage tax. Financing benefit with wage taxation subjects the funding to the vagaries of demographic shifts of the percentage of people in the labor force. Besides, a VAT is less regressive than a wage tax, especially a capped wage tax.
Scott Sumner
Jul 23 2022 at 8:22pm
A flat rate wage tax is theoretically identical to a flat rate VAT, although in practice they may differ due to tax evasion.
Phil H
Jul 24 2022 at 4:31am
Yep. You might say that regardless of whether policy will last the stretch, it’s good to analyze it on the assumption that it will last. (The idea being that it prevents politicians from enacting highly short-term it’s policies.) But the value of strict realism about the effects of policy is still greater, in terms of enabling political choice to act effectively… I think!
(I’m slightly concerned, because I think the main mechanism through which democracy generates its beneficial effects is through the regular swapping of elites, not necessarily through the rational selection of good policies by voters, so it’s possible that the kind of long-termist analysis done by budget analysis offices is the only real selective process; in which case long-term credibility may not be relevant.)
Comments are closed.