Most conversations about family-related public policy focus on the 1997-era Child Tax Credit (CTC), a rebate for tax-filers based on the number of children they have. But a bipartisan working group in the House is beginning to coalesce around something new—sort of. 

Led by Oklahoma Republican Stephanie Bice and Pennsylvania Democrat Chrissy Houlahan, the six-member group is intent on crafting a national program of paid family leave. It would provide funds to pay working parents for a set number of weeks following the birth of a child—something many employers choose to do but is far from universal. Such a policy could be less expensive and potentially more popular than expanding the CTC to $3,600/year: According to a recent poll, while 67 percent of voters support six weeks of federal paid leave for new mothers, only 49 percent support a CTC benefit of $3,600/year or more.

Proponents also say parental leave—and especially maternity leave—could solve a more specific problem by making it easier for parents to spend time with a newborn immediately after birth, which has been shown to improve child and maternal health outcomes. (A 2020 policy brief from the Institute for Family Studies argues that while there may be other benefits to paid parental leave—including stabler marriages and closer connection to employment for parents—policymakers should keep child and maternal health front of mind since that’s where the evidence is strongest.)

Paid leave has been talked about in D.C. for years by both parties at separate times, with scant agreement over how to structure or pay for a program. But Bice and Houlahan think starting with a “clean slate” and approaching the issue in a bipartisan manner could provide enough momentum to get something done.

Their shared interest in the issue stems from their time on the House Armed Services Committee last Congress, where they worked together on paid leave for military personnel. After a Democratic-only effort at a federal paid leave program stalled last year, Houlahan’s office reached out to the Bipartisan Policy Center (BPC) and found that Bice was also interested in a broader paid family leave effort. They then recruited four other members—Democrats Colin Allred and Haley Stevens and Republicans Julia Letlow and Mariannette Miller-Meeks—and got to work.

The group’s ultimate goal is to draft bipartisan legislation that can pass both chambers of Congress. To that end, its members are meeting at least once a month—and their staff are in communication on a daily basis.

“I haven’t seen this level of intellectual rigor and exploration from members of Congress on two sides of the aisle on almost any issue,” said Adrienne Schweer, a former Senate and Pentagon staffer and fellow at BPC who has worked with the group.

In February, the group met with some of the members and staff who were involved in negotiating the Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA)—which provides up to 12 weeks of unpaid job protection for family and medical leave—30 years ago. In March, they met with representatives from six of the 11 states with paid family leave laws to learn more about how those laws are funded and implemented. Last week, they sent a letter to both parties’ leadership asking for support. And on Tuesday, they met with leaders in the insurance industry.

They’ll need all the information they can get: While crafting their proposal, members of the group will need to decide who would be eligible, how many weeks of leave to pay for, how much money to provide leave-claimers during those weeks, how to pay for the program, and how the government should administer it.

For example, the Democratic-only FAMILY Act—which was cut from the reconciliation package the party passed last year—would have provided paid benefits for multiple types of leave, including family caregiving and personal medical leave, but it wouldn’t have addressed job protections for those not covered by FMLA, meaning beneficiaries could theoretically collect the equivalent of two-thirds of their typical wages for 12 weeks before losing their jobs. In contrast, a working group of policy analysts convened by the American Enterprise Institute and the Brookings Institution in 2017 recommended job-protected benefits of 70 percent of wages for up to eight weeks—but only for parental leave. 

Administration is another question: While the FAMILY Act would have created a new office to administer the program, states have approached the issue in a variety of ways: New Hampshire even contracts with MetLife, a private insurance company.

As with any social spending, funding for a paid leave program—which would cost tens of billions of dollars each year—could become a third rail, with Democrats resistant to spending cuts and Republicans opposed to tax increases for new social spending. But “in terms of the federal budget, this is not a big lift,” policy consultant and former GOP Senate staffer Abby McCloskey argued: A program along the lines of the AEI/Brookings proposal (about $13 billion per year) would cost less than 1 percent of what the government spends on Social Security annually (about $1 trillion).

When it comes to paid maternity leave, the United States is an outlier among developed countries. And almost half of American workers are ineligible for FMLA because they don’t work enough hours, haven’t been working for their employer long enough, or their employer is too small to qualify.

“Traditionally, we’ve had much less regulation on our labor markets and companies, which is in part why the U.S. economy has grown and flourished at the rate it has,” McCloskey said.

But that dynamism isn’t cost-free. Although many American companies provide paid time off, McCloskey said she remains “unconvinced that a mother and father’s ability to bond with their infants should be hinged on the benevolence of the company they work for.” 

“We need an extra level of protection there for the sake of the child,” she added.

Members of both parties increasingly agree. Although paid leave has traditionally been a Democratic issue, that began to change in 2016, when Donald Trump, at the behest of his daughter Ivanka, became the first Republican candidate to roll out a paid leave plan—versions of which were included in each of his administration’s four budget proposals.

Republicans on the Hill took notice. Sens. Marco Rubio, Mike Lee, and Joni Ernst led efforts to allow workers to pay for parental leave by delaying or cutting into future Social Security benefits. Sens. Bill Cassidy and Kyrsten Sinema introduced a bipartisan bill that would allow parents to claim some of their CTC money early when a child is born. And Nebraska Sen. Deb Fischer’s Strong Families Act, which offers a tax credit to employers that offer paid family leave to their employees, actually became law as a bipartisan amendment to the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, Republicans’ 2017 budget reconciliation package.

An emergency program of paid sick leave and family leave was included in a March 2020 COVID relief bill, but it expired at the end of that year. Meanwhile, Democrats’ dream of passing paid leave on their own died when the FAMILY Act—which would have been funded with payroll taxes—was cut from what became the Inflation Reduction Act.

Now, in a divided Congress, both parties are more interested in coming to the table. 

“There’s a real potential here,” McCloskey said. “Even for a country that prefers to keep a tax base low and regulatory burden light, it’s something that can be done in a pretty manageable way.”

Source: The Dispatch

The post The Next Issue in Family-Focused Public Policy appeared first on Policy Print.

At the second annual Royce International Symposium held earlier this month, former U.S. Rep. Ed Royce and a panel of foreign policy experts and scholars offered their perspectives on what is happening in Europe and Asia and why these events are important for America. The symposium was organized by Cal State Fullerton.

During his keynote address for the symposium, which was held at the Richard Nixon Library, Royce pointed out that Nixon was instrumental in reestablishing communications and partnerships between America and China in the early 1970s.

“While China is challenging, we have to remain engaged,” Royce said. “I think Russia is destined to be destabilized.”

Royce ’77 (B.A. business administration-accounting, finance), a CSUF alumnus who served in Congress for 26 years and chaired the House Foreign Affairs Committee from 2013-19, currently serves as policy director of Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck. He believes that because Nixon (and John F. Kennedy before him) were young men during World War II, they were able to observe what happens when totalitarian countries are “on the march and begin carving out territories.

“How a nation treats its own people tells us how likely it is to treat its neighbors.”— Former U.S. Rep. Ed Royce ’77

“When the United States sees free people fighting back against regimes that would replace democracies, our security is at risk,” he said. “In China, we see increased militarization and aggressive behaviors toward Taiwan, the Philippines and others. I believe we should transfer missile systems to Taiwan so they can launch a credible defense if necessary.

“We should also be sending arms to Ukraine,” he added. “If Europe is sending arms, so should we. We need to supply defensive weapons to the free people of Ukraine. A strong defense system is a credible deterrence.”

Following the keynote address, Cal State Fullerton professors moderated panels that focused on two specific territories of concern: Russia/Ukraine and China. 

Europe Panel

Moderator: David Traven, associate professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton and author of “Law and Sentiment in Internal Politics: Ethics, Emotions and the Evolution of the Laws of War”

Tom Sheehy, principal at Quinella Global LLC and former staff director of the Committee on Foreign Affairs in the U.S. House of Representative

• “There are many challenges in Europe and elsewhere. You’ve got Russia invading Ukraine, Russia and China meeting together, and let’s not forget Iran and North Korea. This is an era when the U.S. and its allies are confronting daunting challenges. The balance of power is important, and alliances are being created for stability. Right now, the U.S. is the greatest world power with China at number two. If Vladimir Putin (president of Russia) succeeds in Ukraine, it extinguishes any possibility of that country remaining a democracy.”
• “Ukraine is important in defending world order. The indiscriminate bombings; the savage, brutal attacks; the suffering of the Ukrainian people; and the violations of territorial areas should be a concern to all.”
• “There is debate and there needs to be debate on how to help Ukraine. The risks of escalation are real, and we need to be attentive to details. Putin is desperate to keep power, which is why he’s meeting with Xi Jinping (president of the People’s Republic of China).”
• “There has been incredible resolve by the people of Ukraine and Europe’s response has been admirable. Also consider that many Russians have left Russia. Even if Russia wins, it’s in a weakened state. This war wasn’t started by the Russian people, but by their leaders. The vast majority of Russians are lukewarm or keeping their heads down when it comes to supporting the war.”
• “How long can Russia continue with these losses? The number of Russians killed has been quoted as anything from 20,000 to 200,000…and it could be higher. There is the possibility of exhausting their military power. That’s why Putin needs China and others to assist. This is the most precarious time in European history since 1939.”

Paul D’Anieri, professor of political science and public policy, at UC Riverside and author of “Ukraine and Russia: From Civilized Divorce to Uncivil War; Ukraine’s Outpost: Dnipropetrovsk and the Russian-Ukrainian War”

• “In 2014, Putin annexed Crimea; now he wants all of Ukraine. If Russia takes Ukraine, what is next? If Putin’s goal is to return Russia to its imperial boundaries, that would include Warsaw and Finland. Does European unity last?”
• “Much has been made of sending $46 billion to Ukraine, but recognize that this is just 5.5% of the military defense budget. The greatest cost to America would be the cost of lives lost if our troops were in Ukraine and the Ukrainians aren’t asking for that. We should give Ukraine the ‘hardware’ it needs to defend itself.”
• “This isolationist idea of ‘Why should we care?’ doesn’t reflect realist thinking. Do we believe if Ukraine collapses, it won’t affect us? That’s naïve. If Russia wins, we’ll have to put troops in Europe because Russia will continue to invade other territories. Ukraine is important to defend world order.”
• “It’s hard to see any military gains for nuclear weapons. Also remember that nuclear weapons come in different levels. There are tactical weapons that can take out a battalion and strategic weapons that can vaporize large areas.”
• “The number of Ukrainians who support Russia is about 2%. Ukrainians don’t believe they are Russians. How do you define a win? For Russia, it would be to regain all the territory it has lost. Maybe China can disrupt the process. If they could, that’s a good look for China among the world’s nations. I’m not sure how long Russia can sustain the losses of life, their world standing, etc.”

Asia Panel

Moderator: Alexei Shevchenko, professor of political science at Cal State Fullerton and author of “Quest for Status: Chinese and Russian Foreign Policy”

Sean K. O’Neill, U.S. State Department visiting professor at George Washington University, career member of the U.S. Senior Foreign Services, and former foreign affairs fellow on staff of the chairman of the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs

• “Does diplomacy exist? It does, but how effective is it? As the world changes, our strategies can’t remain static. For instance, we need to change our practices of diplomacy in response to China’s global ambitions. I hope the U.S. never keeps strategy on the shelf like an old encyclopedia that gets opened anywhere from one to 10 years. Close enough isn’t good enough.”
• “China’s rise, relative to the United States, is not a zero-sum competition. The U.S. will stand up for our values. China often uses coercion — Wolf Warrior diplomacy that is confrontational and combative. You shouldn’t be coerced into making a choice. You should have free choice.”
• “We’re seeing the rise and advance of China’s military. The PRC (People’s Republic of China) has expanded their naval presence in the south China sea. They now have at least 350 nuclear warheads and have indicated that by 2027, they will have 700. They could take Taiwan. After the first gulf war, the PLA (People’s Liberation Army) noticed that the U.S. was ahead, and they needed to catch up.”
• “We need to make Xi understand what a disaster it would be for the people of China if he makes moves on Taiwan.”  
• “It’s important to recognize the difference between intent (what you want to get done) and consequences (how to avoid unintended consequences). Intentions matter, but the consequences are what is important.”

Xiaoyu Pu, associate professor of political science at University of Nevada, Reno and author of “Rebranding China: Contested Status Signaling in the Changing Global Order”

• “The U.S. has always played a leading role with China. As China’s economic influence has increased, we have been the number one trading partner.”
• “Our peaceful use of strategy hasn’t ended tensions, but neither side is applying their military strength.”
• “U.S. power isn’t declining, but China is rising and there is a gap. However, the U.S. is a resilient power and the West is still more powerful.”
• “The U.S. will compete with China, but we need a peaceful framework to coexist. There is a difference between conflict and competition.”

In addition to Cal State Fullerton, sponsors include Richard Nixon Foundation (title sponsor), Brownstein Hyatt Farmer Shreck and SchoolsFirst Federal Credit Union (gold sponsors), and KyleHouse Group and Paul Carter, ’92 (silver sponsors).

Source : CSUF News

The post American Foreign Policy in a Destabilized World appeared first on Policy Print.