[ad_1]
RThe epublicans should be very, very grateful to have the AOC and its "squad" of anti-Semites and socialists to report for election day. If not, why would we continue to vote for them?
The new "conservative" proposal of Republican senators does not constitute a reduction in spending, but the creation of another unfunded right, in the form of the law of educational leave empowerment and of development, or CRADLE. The Paid Parental Leave Scheme, developed by the usually vigorous conservative senators, Joni Ernst of Iowa and Mike Lee of Utah, is the latest in a series of Republican attempts to respond to the idea of Ivanka Trump that the GOP bleeds women because it is not. give the ladies enough free money, instead of what her father says on his Twitter account.
As the ExaminerKimberly Leonard describes:
The CRADLE law would allow parents to take one, two or three months off to take care of a newborn or adoptive child. In exchange, people could defer retirement benefits by two, four or six months, respectively … To be eligible, parents must have worked four of the previous four quarters, five of the six previous quarters or at least 20 quarters at least before filing the application. People less likely to get an employer-sponsored family leave would receive more generous benefits and parents should live in the same house as their child for at least half of the year following the birth or birth. 39; adoption.
Compared to the hopeless Democratic and presidential senator, Kirsten Gillibrand, who persistently insisted on getting an illiterate health insurance and sickness insurance leave, or FAMILY law, CRADLE law does not require new tax in the near future. But it is still an unfunded liability, promising to self-pay with the lie that social security is anything but a ponzi scheme.
Social security beneficiaries do not simply receive "their" money. They are paid with mine. Each generation of social security beneficiaries is effectively stealing the next generations, which is why the program will be insolvent over the next two decades.
Linking paid leave to the crippling social security vessel will undoubtedly require the same payroll increase as Gillibrand's long-term payroll. The mere fact that it is not immediate does not make it less flagrant.
Lee and Ernst describe the program as a curator because it is both voluntary and does not create a new tax. Theoretically, they say, it's just about allowing people to shoot theirs retirement funds today instead of tomorrow. But is it really their own funds if the program is expected to cost between $ 8 and $ 9 billion a year? Lee and Ernst say their program is fiscally neutral in the long run, but was not social security supposed to be long-term? In the long run, are not we all dead?
In fact, it is even more irresponsible from a financial point of view, a vain project at best and a sham of conservatism at worst. For two of the country's largest Republicans, and the most widely respected, calling another "unfunded" right a "conservative" is a testament to the disastrous reactionary state of our current movement.
Conservatives should be aggressive in trying to reverse their losses with women. They can start by deregulating contraception. They should expand Title X funding even when separating it from abortion providers, giving women more proactive choices before conception. They should expand the tax credits that benefit working parents and stay-at-home parents. They should adhere to the pressure for transparency and accountability generated by the Me Too movement, even as we continue to defend the sanctity of legality. And they should perhaps calm him down with rhetoric, especially from some Oval man.
But unleashing another right, functionally equivalent to that of the far-left Democrats in the long run, is not just a bad strategy. This is not even conservative.
[ad_2]
Source link