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

Most Popular

Politics & Policy

The Rise of the Abortion Cheerleaders

Is abortion a sad and unfortunate reality — regrettable, as we are sometimes told, but often necessary — or is it a breezy nothingburger, completely “normal,” and something to be giddily celebrated like a last-minute NFL touchdown?  For a long time, the abortion lobby has had difficulty deciding. This ... Read More

Europe Needs to Grow Up

It was a hot and difficult summer. And Europeans were pained to hear the blunt assessment that the U.S. would not be able to forever sustain NATO without greater investment on their part. The alliance was heading for “collective military irrelevance” and the current state of affairs was “unacceptable,” ... Read More