President Clinton touted his new ‘family leave’ bill, sold as free time off to care for children. It turns out the employers of 50 or more covered by the bill have to pay medical care during the leave. At an average cost of $2,000 for the leave, it is not surprising that a Gallup study for the National Federation of Independent Business, found that half of the businesses said they would be reluctant to hire young women under the law, would try to replace low-skilled jobs with machines, and would trim other benefits.
[Candidate Bill Clinton's health-care proposal] resembles long-standing plans by congressional Democrats to impose a version of socialized medicine in America.
The family-leave bill is another example of the crass hypocrisy that afflicts the leisured class on Capitol Hill. Its champions sanctimoniously call it ‘pro-family,’ but it really places a tax on mothers who work because they must work to support their families. The type of ‘family’ it would truly benefit would be two lawyers who marry each other and have their first offspring at 38 after having purchased their big house in the suburbs and the his-and-her ‘Beamers.’ If Congress wants to help families that are economically stressed, it should simply cut taxes. In the meantime, the president should not waver on his promise to veto this yuppie vacation law.
Under the guise of civil rights for the disabled, the Senate had passed a disaster for U.S. business.
Since access would now be a civil right, moreover, the cost would not be relevant--even if that means eliminating bus service or closing down businesses that cannot afford either compliance or the legal expenses of defending themselves in court. In addition, the bill would also, for the first time, grant homosexuals the right to sue over discrimination.
Every school child knows you don't raise taxes in a recession unless you want to make it worse.
The true purpose of the tax bill is to finance a further expansion of government. For all of the yelling and kicking, Congress still has done nothing serious to curb government spending. Therefore we have a swelling deficit. And because of the deficit, we’re told, taxes must go up.
Millions of women will get pay raises over the next years, but countless others are in danger of losing their jobs.
[While the] bill may have motives in the finest traditions of gallantry, it actually is about as ungallant as a kick in the shins. [These costs arise] from the indisputable fact that women are more prone to housemaking and motherhood than men.
[The bill] is enough to give the boss of a lot of women workers the shudders. So much so that he may stop hiring women altogether. If that happens, pretty soon women would be right back in the place some men think they never should have left.
