Statement on the Rubio/Romney/Wagner Proposal

We welcome the growing bipartisan support for a national paid leave program. Our movement has succeeded in transforming this issue from the margins to the center of the political agenda as a key issue for family economic health and security. As with all proposals, however, the devil is in the details. What people need and want is a plan that is effective and sustainable, one that values all care and reaches every family. The plan proposed by Senator Rubio, Senator Romney, and Representative Wagner excludes 75 percent of those needing time to care and provides income only by taking it away later on.

“Similar to the Economic Security for New Parents Act Sen. Rubio introduced last year, and the Cradle Act introduced by Sen. Lee and Ernst earlier this month, this proposal would have parents of a new child draw income while on leave by raiding their own Social Security account, forcing both a delay in retirement and a cut in benefits. According to an Urban Institute analysis of the Economic Security for New Parents proposal, such an approach would cause a six-month delay in eligibility for Social Security for each three-month leave benefit taken. The delay applies no matter when a beneficiary chooses to retire. A typical parent of two children in the U.S. would experience an estimated 7 percent reduction in lifetime Social Security benefits. This would impose hardship on those who most depend on Social Security in their later years and are least likely to have paid leave through their employer, the same people traditionally excluded by U.S. employment laws – low-wage workers, people of color, disproportionately female.

“The proposal from Sen. Rubio, Sen. Romney, and Rep. Wagner would provide partial paid leave only to a small minority of workers, excluding all those who need time to care for themselves or a loved one. It would leave out Stephanie from Pennsylvania who was forced to work while undergoing radiation treatment, Kris from Colorado who missed her father’s dying days, and Brenda in Nevada who had to choose between keeping her job and staying by her one-and-a-half year old daughter’s side after she was hospitalized. Even for most parents of a new child, the trade-off with social security makes the leave hard to use.

“This bill draws on a concept that originated with the Independent Women’s Forum, whose goal, as Lisa Graves noted, is to fundamentally undermine the Social Security system. The IWF previously boasted about undermining the integrity of Social Security and having ‘lasting implications for government’s safety nets more broadly.’

“The U.S. is an outlier when it comes to paid leave. As we work to catch up with the rest of the world, it’s important that we pass a modest minimum that meets the “Triple A” test: accessible, affordable and adequate for all workers. The good news is we have a solution that allows people to care for themselves and their family members and keep their Social Security intact, namely the FAMILY Act introduced by Senator Gillibrand and Representative DeLauro earlier this year. It has a sustainable funding source, follows the model that has proven effective in multiple states for employees and employers alike, and covers all care needs. 

“Strong majorities of voters in both parties support real paid leave AND strengthening Social Security. They want meaningful action, not steps in the wrong direction. It’s time to pass what works. It’s time to pass the FAMILY Act.”