The Corner

Politics & Policy

The Paid-Leave Debate, Continued

vanka Trump speaks at the 2017 Trafficking in Persons Report (TIP) Ceremony at the State Department, June 27, 2017. (Yuri Gripas/Reuters)

Conservatives and libertarians have been debating among themselves the idea of letting people take some of their Social Security benefits early: As new parents they could get money from the government to finance time off work, in return for delaying their receipt of Social Security benefits for a financially equivalent amount of time.

The other day I argued here that some righties are making criticisms of this idea that apply equally to the old idea, nearly universally applauded by conservatives and libertarians, of personal Social Security accounts. Maybe, I suggested, they should take another look at the paid-leave idea. Veronique de Rugy has responded. But her points all fall into one of two categories: Either they misdescribe the personal-accounts idea or they simply restate arguments against paid leave that, as I already pointed out, apply equally to the personal-accounts idea.

Her arguments that paid leave would be a new entitlement, that politicians could refuse to deliver the spending restraint used to pay for it, and that it speeds the insolvency of the Social Security trust fund are all, as I originally noted, arguments that apply at least as much to personal accounts. Introducing personal accounts would speed the trust fund’s insolvency a lot more than family leave, since the numbers involved are much larger; and this effect of personal accounts was central to the argument that liberals made against personal accounts.

De Rugy leaves the misimpression that personal accounts, by themselves, would make Social Security more solvent. That’s false. They would only reduce the program’s long-run fiscal shortfall if they were combined with changes to the program’s existing benefits—if, for example, young people gave up some of those benefits in return for having the ability to put some of their payroll taxes in personal accounts. Even then, there would be a medium-term financing issue, since people would be effectively trading future benefits for an account today. It is the exact same financing issue de Rugy decries when it comes to the paid-leave idea, only bigger.

Ramesh Ponnuru is a senior editor for National Review, a columnist for Bloomberg Opinion, a visiting fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, and a senior fellow at the National Review Institute.

Most Popular


A Reckoning Is in Store for Democrats

The crisis of the Democrats is becoming more evident each week. Those of us who have been loudly predicting for years that the Russian-collusion argument would be exposed as a defamatory farce, and that the authors of it would eventually pay for it, are bemused at the fallback position of the Trump-haters: that ... Read More
Politics & Policy

Ilhan Omar: A Hostage Situation

‘It has to stop,” says Representative Ilhan Omar. No, it does not. Representative Omar, the Jew-hating Minnesota Democrat, is engaged in one of her usual games of misdirection, a pattern of hers that by now is familiar enough to be predicted: She says something outrageously stupid, offensive, ... Read More

Why ‘Stop Sanders’?

'Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge?” T. S. Eliot asked. “Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” And where is the intelligence we have lost in cleverness? Cleverness is the plague of our political classes, an influenza of the intellect. The consultants are always trying to ... Read More