Responding, perhaps, to this eminently sensible editorial from the Tacoma News Tribune, Representative Steve Conway, D-Tacoma, and Senator Karen Keiser, D-Des Moines, submitted this op-ed defending the merits of the program, tossing in some pretty surprising assertions along the way.
Background: The Joint Legislative Task Force set up to figure out this new labor mandate/social welfare benefit, faced with the practical, political, and economic difficulties of a new payroll tax, recommended paying for the set-up, administration, and benefits of the program out of the state's (now ephemeral) general fund surplus. This plan received a bit of heat.
Said the News Tribune:
Using existing tax revenue is a bad idea for several reasons, primarily because the state cannot afford it. The state surplus — which dipped below $1.4 billion earlier this month because of a slowing housing market — has enough claims on its shrinking riches. And it won’t last forever. ...
Over the long run, making family leave a general-fund entitlement would open the door to the costly expansion of benefits. It is far easier for legislators to slip extra money to programs buried in the $30 billion general-fund budget than it would be to raise a tax on workers’ paychecks.
The Governor seems conflicted on the proposal, according to published reports. The Olympian's Brad Shannon quotes her legislative director, Marty Brown, as saying "The governor is open to looking at the general fund on start-up costs, but as for benefits, she is not there yet." Indeed, in her just-released 2008 supplemental budget proposal, Governor Gregoire proposed $6.2 million for the Employment Security Department to start setting up the program - and that's it.
Apparently attempting to build support for this (and more), the Conway/Keiser op-ed argues this is a wise investment. But their case has some holes. For instance, they claim:
We’re not the first state to recognize the importance of paid family leave. California, New York, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Hawaii utilize a payroll tax to pay for maternity or family leave benefits.
On the contrary, I would direct attention to this comparison (created by the Task Force's own research staff) which shows these other states, unlike Washington, all have long-standing state-run temporary disability insurance programs and they apply only to leave for the individual's own non-work-related disability. Only California has expanded the use of that program to paid family leave. And Washington's program, especially in its regulatory aspect, imposes much more on employers than California's version. More:
Family leave insurance yields large returns: It lowers infant mortality, encourages breast-feeding (bolstering babies’ immune systems), and allows women time to recover from childbirth. It also improves productivity by reducing turnover and helping children become better learners – both essential to economic growth.
It would be interesting to see empirical data that would document these assertions. This "insurance" being a relatively novel thing, however, it seems unlikely there is much data that would suggest its availability or use has a measurable effect on these sorts of indicators. On the contrary, those countries with the most liberal leave policies tend to have higher unemployment and meager economic growth. And:
Our state’s paramount duty is to provide for the education of all of Washington’s children. Family leave insurance assures that all our children benefit from the care of their first and best teachers – their parents.
This rhetorical flourish again proves the improbable durability of our state constitution's "paramount duty" clause!
A lot is murky with the funding and administration of this program but one thing is clear: it will be an interesting 2008 session.
