Back in October, the Council of the District of Columbia made news when a majority of its members pushed for the most generous paid-family-leave program in the country: a whopping 16 weeks. And we do mean whopping. Sixteen weeks is longer than the 12 weeks supported by Hillary Clinton and the 14 weeks endorsed by Bernie Sanders. It even surpasses the paid-leave provided by the Communist government of the People’s Republic of China. (Seriously, think about that.)
The proposal was lauded for its boldness by the Obama administration and others on the left. It is also extremely expansive. As explained in the Washington Post, “almost every part-time and full-time employee in the nation’s capital would be entitled to 16 weeks of paid family leave to bond with an infant or an adopted child, recover from an illness, recuperate from a military deployment or tend to an ill family member.” In addition, “The District would offer . . . unprecedented coverage for workers’ salaries and hourly wages: 100 percent of pay for those making up to $52,000 a year. Employees who earn more than that would be eligible for $1,000 a week plus 50 percent of their additional income, up to a maximum of $3,000 per week.”
Now we hate to bring this up, but how exactly is all this being financed? According to the Post, “private employers in the city would be required to pay the equivalent of as much as 1 percent of all employees’ salary costs into a citywide fund to cover the universal benefit.” This does, however, present a problem: “Because the District cannot require the federal government to pay such a tax, the bill would set up two classes of workers in the city: employees of private companies, who would have their leave funded by a new tax on employers, vs. federal employees and others, who would be required to pay the tax themselves.”
A recent Washington Post poll showed 82 percent of District residents back the 16-week paid-leave plan. But support plummets to 45 percent when they are asked, “What if the benefits were paid for by a new tax on workers instead of businesses—would you support or oppose this law?” Likewise, local businesses are wary about having to pay for such an extended leave. In short, this bill is going nowhere.
But what about the children? As the Post observes, “Under one initial estimate, developed through a federal grant, only 12 percent of the leave taken in the District might be claimed by employees taking time off to care for a newborn.” For the record, The Scrapbook would have taken the time off for a much-needed mental health break. In Barbados.
