s/o What do you consider pro-family policies?

[Deleted]

I'm hoping to get responses from both conservatives and liberals. Frankly, I'm probably more interested in conservative responses because I feel like I have a better handle on what liberals consider to be pro-family policies.

If you had to list policy initiatives that you think would make a party "pro-family," what would they be? Do those policies fit in with your political ideology or not?

I realize that "pro-family" is a bit of a nebulous term, but do your best.

[msmerymac]

Hmm.

- Paid parental leave. Something like in Scandinavian nations, which involve up to 52 weeks of time off, a certain percentage of which is to be taken by the father/non-birthing parent. This could be similar to the Canadian system, where it is funded through unemployment insurance and pays a certain percentage of your pay, up to a certain amount.

- More affordable and/or subsidized child care.

- Universal health insurance coverage for all children. Ideally for everyone, but I'll start small...

- Expansion of FMLA to apply to non-maternal/paternal leave, as well as to cover smaller companies.

- Expansion of protections for breast feeding mothers.

- Educational revisions/revamping of NCLB, and more money for education. No specifics, as this is not something I've thought about or researched that much. Aim for better student/teacher ratios.

- Continuation of school breakfast and subsidized lunch programs.

ETA: Oh, duh, full contraception, abortion, pre-natal care and annual gynecological exam access and coverage. Which would be easier to attain with universal health coverage.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 15:58:55 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

- Expansion of FMLA to apply to non-maternal/paternal leave, as well as to cover smaller companies.

FMLA is not currently limited to parental leave.

[heyjude]

- access to contraception.

- access to quality prenatal care.

- paid family leave for both mom and dad for at least 3 months.

- support for breastfeeding moms in the workplace.

- access to affordable/quality child care.

This is what "pro family values" is all about.

[Deleted]

Meh, see I'm having difficulties with this because at the heart of it, I don't believe that families are the government's issue.

The only one I can think of off top is not banning contraception or access to it. I'd really have to think of what else I would be cool with instituting on a governmental scale.

I do believe in social programs for low income families but I wouldn't call that a pro-family platform as much as a societal platform.

Maybe I do hate families.

[msmerymac]

May 14, 2012 16:01:52 GMT -5 @angryharpy said:

May 14, 2012 15:58:55 GMT -5 msmerymac said:

- Expansion of FMLA to apply to non-maternal/paternal leave, as well as to cover smaller companies.

FMLA is not currently limited to parental leave.

I know. What I meant is that if we have a national, comprehensive, lengthy parental leave policy (like 52 weeks paid parental leave, as I suggested in my first point) we would still need FMLA for the other things it covers (sick parent, sick child). I would like to see it expanded, even though the maternity leave aspect would already be covered. I.e. I would want it to cover smaller companies, perhaps provide a small amount of compensation.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 16:15:25 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Maybe I do hate families.

I don't think it means that you hate families. I think it means that you don't see the government's role as being that of encouraging or facilitating the creation of healthy families.

But I also think it means that if you were running for public office, you probably shouldn't run a "pro-family values" campaign a la Rick Santorum.

[Deleted]

Values =/= policies

[basilosaurus]

May 14, 2012 16:19:05 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Values =/= policies

OK, but what are pro-family values, then, that you support and that you think your party supports? Or is pro-family as part of a platform as politically meaningless as saying you're pro-red sox?

[heyjude]

May 14, 2012 16:15:25 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Meh, see I'm having difficulties with this because at the heart of it, I don't believe that families are the government's issue.
.

You may not believe. But here's reality. Every day, governments across this country are engaging in and voting on issues that impact the family. And people are getting elected or not elected based on how vociferously say they support "family values."

[earlgreyhot]

May 14, 2012 16:15:25 GMT -5 @habbsies said:

Meh, see I'm having difficulties with this because at the heart of it, I don't believe that families are the government's issue.

The only one I can think of off top is not banning contraception or access to it. I'd really have to think of what else I would be cool with instituting on a governmental scale.

I do believe in social programs for low income families but I wouldn't call that a pro-family platform as much as a societal platform.

Maybe I do hate families.

I see these statements as the same. It is in the society's best interest that we have strong families and therefore setting policies that help remove the inherit burden that childbearing brings. Especially since with one parent staying at home less of an option to the working and even middle classes.

My perfect world looks like Canada (1 year leave), but I'd like to see the US start with disallowing maternity riders from insurance plans, 6 weeks mandatory leave, paid for the mother with up to 6 months unpaid standard, though more progressive companies would provide some sort of paid leave. Subisidies for compaines that offer childcare options.

As a start...

[rugbywife]

I have no problem with paying taxes to pay for social policies that support large portions of the population (children, families, the mentally ill, the elderly). I believe it is the responsibility of the community (read: citizens) to take care of others in their time of need. Some might never need help, others may need it for a really long time. I am cool with that and I don't mind paying higher taxes as a result...so, with that in mind, I believe pro-family policies include:

1-year paid mat leave (similar to what we already have in Canada) - I would love to see it upped to two years but that is probably pushing it.

Universal health care

Free extended health care (dental and drugs) for any child where a parent's coverage don't exist

Government subsidized day care (Quebec's $7 a day daycare is a perfect example)

Lots of $$ going into education

Baby bonuses

EDIT: also, government $$ for post-secondary education loans AND government $$ for subsidizing the cost of post-secondary education...it costs way less to go to college or university here. LOVE!


But let's be fair, I live in Canada, we are pretty much socialists up here.

[emmybean]

::::runs in to thread arms flailing::::

SABATICALS!!!!!!

:::collapses in heap:::

A family isn't defined by the addition of a new baby. And it isn't limited to immidiate blood relatives. And fostering a more "family friendly" country shouldn't rely on only caring for people at their worst.

A sabatical system takes a way the "entitlement" of maternity leave, and would allow everyone to foster their family as the best saw fit.

[druidp]

May 14, 2012 20:24:47 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I have no problem with paying taxes to pay for social policies that support large portions of the population (children, families, the mentally ill, the elderly). I believe it is the responsibility of the community (read: citizens) to take care of others in their time of need. Some might never need help, others may need it for a really long time. I am cool with that and I don't mind paying higher taxes as a result...so, with that in mind, I believe pro-family policies include:

1-year paid mat leave (similar to what we already have in Canada) - I would love to see it upped to two years but that is probably pushing it.

Universal health care

Free extended health care (dental and drugs) for any child where a parent's coverage don't exist

Government subsidized day care (Quebec's $7 a day daycare is a perfect example)

Lots of $$ going into education

Baby bonuses

EDIT: also, government $$ for post-secondary education loans AND government $$ for subsidizing the cost of post-secondary education...it costs way less to go to college or university here. LOVE!


But let's be fair, I live in Canada, we are pretty much socialists up here.

Um, what? So my boss should be paying me a bonus for reproducing?
Yeah, that won't be a problem at all for sterile employees. Not.at.all. Seriously, if that is what I think it is, that is probably one of the crazier ideas I've ever heard on Nest-related boards.

[rugbywife]

Our baby bonuses are paid by the gov't. I don't have kids but I *think* they are about $100 a kid a month.

I didn't mention anything that was paid for by companies I don't think...although a lot of companies do pay for a 'top' up for the 1-year mat leave that the gov't pays for (so the max for 1-year mat leave is 55% of about $44000 - pretty much you get unemployment for a year but a lot of companies 'top-up' to pay either 44k in total OR, in a lot of corporate setting, your full pay.

Other than that most of what I mentioned was paid through taxes.

[Deleted]

Re: baby bonuses. I'd argue that's called the child tax credit and dependent care credit.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 22:09:42 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Our baby bonuses are paid by the gov't. I don't have kids but I *think* they are about $100 a kid a month.

I didn't mention anything that was paid for by companies I don't think...although a lot of companies do pay for a 'top' up for the 1-year mat leave that the gov't pays for (so the max for 1-year mat leave is 55% of about $44000 - pretty much you get unemployment for a year but a lot of companies 'top-up' to pay either 44k in total OR, in a lot of corporate setting, your full pay.

Other than that most of what I mentioned was paid through taxes.

*fellow Socialist/Canadian checking in**

There are apparently a few different baby bonuses. One is federal, one is provincial. I do know that one of them is $100 per month regardless of income and the other is based on income (we didn't qualify). DH filled out the forms so I didn't pay attention to any of it.

Its all paid via taxpayer $, largely through employment insurance which everyone pays into. The burden isn't on the employer.

So rugbywife - when you were reading this thread with what others want did you just go....um...move to Canada?

I also want to add the Quebec daycare program seems fantastic. And when i was in uni my (Conservative) prof talked about how the economic benefits far outweigh the costs in terms of productivity in the marketplace.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 21:54:26 GMT -5 druidp said:

May 14, 2012 20:24:47 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

I have no problem with paying taxes to pay for social policies that support large portions of the population (children, families, the mentally ill, the elderly). I believe it is the responsibility of the community (read: citizens) to take care of others in their time of need. Some might never need help, others may need it for a really long time. I am cool with that and I don't mind paying higher taxes as a result...so, with that in mind, I believe pro-family policies include:

1-year paid mat leave (similar to what we already have in Canada) - I would love to see it upped to two years but that is probably pushing it.

Universal health care

Free extended health care (dental and drugs) for any child where a parent's coverage don't exist

Government subsidized day care (Quebec's $7 a day daycare is a perfect example)

Lots of $$ going into education

Baby bonuses

EDIT: also, government $$ for post-secondary education loans AND government $$ for subsidizing the cost of post-secondary education...it costs way less to go to college or university here. LOVE!


But let's be fair, I live in Canada, we are pretty much socialists up here.

Um, what? So my boss should be paying me a bonus for reproducing?
Yeah, that won't be a problem at all for sterile employees. Not.at.all. Seriously, if that is what I think it is, that is probably one of the crazier ideas I've ever heard on Nest-related boards.

I'm not going to argue with you about the baby bonus, but clearly it can't be that crazy if we have it, as do many other countries.

I must say I'm fascinated by the idealogical differences many Canadians and Americans have. For some reason people up here just have this "whats good for society is good for me" type attitude. I wish I could phrase that without it sounding insulting, because thats not my intention. There's lot of things I think that Americans do 1000x better than up here. But I'm always curious as to why two relatively similar countries have such vastly different approaches to such topics.

[basilosaurus]

I like a lot of the "socialist" things Canadians do, but a baby bonus isn't one of them. If you can't afford your kid, I support all the social programs to help. No reason to give you extra cash.

[Deleted]

May 14, 2012 22:47:09 GMT -5 basilosaurus said:

I like a lot of the "socialist" things Canadians do, but a baby bonus isn't one of them. If you can't afford your kid, I support all the social programs to help. No reason to give you extra cash.

I'm actually surprised its never been an election issue, because I do agree with you to an extent. Now Im curious as to when it began and under what circumstances.

Also, at the risk of sounding a bit snotty, there is no way the govt should be giving us $100 a mo th. we really don't need it. I'd say that one should also be income-based.

[rugbywife]

Lauriegirl28 - I am Canadian! I didn't mention the provincial/fed split on baby bonuses because, like you, we wouldn't qualify for the provincial credits (or rather, non of our friends do because most of our friends with kids are teachers, as are we).

I look at the government baby bonus/credit this way: many family spend the money, which puts it back into the economy. Other families choose to put it into an RRSP (or rather, usually an RREP), which supports investment. Both those programs are support the economy.

I don't think ANYBODY has a baby for $1200 a year - that's just silly. But a few of my friends who have a tough time making ends meet love it and the others just invest it in their child's education. Plus, let's be honest, with our tax regiment up here the government ends up getting some of it back anyways (if I got $100 to spend 13% of it goes to HST if I spend it shopping, plus I am supporting business).

As for it's history - it was a bonus that began in the post-World War two era, I would imagine to stimulate growth, which clearly worked given the baby-boomer era that emerged.

[Deleted]

Basically ditto everything Msmerymac said. I also really like France's policy of free universal preschool starting at age three. Likewise, I think the public school day should be extended and school should go year round.

[swelle]

Universal health care (including access to contraception, abortion, etc.)

Free extended health care for any child to cover gaps in parent's insurance coverage (i.e. lack of vision, dental, etc.)

More money to education, making higher education accessible to as many as possible

Government subsidized daycare.

[ttt]

May 14, 2012 16:11:38 GMT -5 asdfjkl said:

I think pro family policies are policies that allow people to shape their family and define their family with unobstructed freedom (i.e. two daddies is okay), control how many children they have (affordable, available birth control), and then deliver those children into an environment that doesn't treat them like they are nothing more than your punishment for enjoying sex.

So:

Government paid maternity leave for 6 moths. That's right SIX MONTHS. You can start your six months as early as one month before your due date. Additional, time off for mothers/fathers of special needs children.

At least 18 mos of protection for breast feeding mothers who wish to pump at work, companies must provide accommodations including adequate break time and a private non-bathroom stall location for pumping.

All those insurance reforms from Obamacare that pertain to children - I like those. I'd like to see them stay.

Insurance should cover lactation consultants even if you use them outside the hospital.

No "moral objection" exceptions to insurance coverage by private companies.


I could add in things that indirectly affect children like issues of school reform and whatnot, but I'll leave those alone for now.

All of this.

I think baby bonuses are a waste of money and unnecessary. I'd much rather be able to enjoy comfortable lactation rooms in public places than have baby bonuses.

But I wouldn't complain if someone insisted on giving me cash, i won't lie.

[NitaX]

May 14, 2012 20:24:47 GMT -5 rugbywife said:

Baby bonuses

What is a Baby Bonus?

To answer OP -

- Paid maternity/paternity leave - 3 months

- Standardized BFing policies. States can add more if they like, but certainly some sort of national policy that mandates a lactation room, breaks, etc.

- Access to contraception

- Increase in the Child Care/Dependent Care Tax Deduction (assuming a flat tax ain't gonna happen) The current tax break includes expenses up to $3,000 and with a decrease in the tax break percentage as income increases. The current amount credit doesn't really help middle class families. A $600 tax break ain't shit. (This from a former divorced mom who only got $660 when I made $45K a year and had no other taxable deductions)

[Deleted]

I don't know, some of us don't want to be on leave for a whole 6 months ( hopefully that doesn't earn me a bad mommy award) so if the gov't did adopt that policy, I could see doing
Baby bonus in lieu of that. Although I don't know if the government should do either.

[ttt]

May 15, 2012 10:21:44 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

I don't know, some of us don't want to be on leave for a whole 6 months ( hopefully that doesn't earn me a bad mommy award) so if the gov't did adopt that policy, I could see doing
Baby bonus in lieu of that. Although I don't know if the government should do either.

I think plenty of people would not necessarily want to be on leave for 6 months, but it should still be available if you do want or need to.

I also like how Sweden and some other countries do it, where you have a certain number of months but you don't have to take them all at once - either you or your partner can take them any time before your child is five, I think. It would be great to know that you have that leave available should your child get sick, for example.

[rugbywife]

Yes, you don't 'have' to take it by any means...

In Canada it doesn't even have to be taken exclusively by the mother...there are 17 weeks of leave called pregnancy leave that must be taken by the mother and then 35 weeks of parenting leave that can be accessed by either parent (parenting leave is also applicable to adoptive parents).

Most likely I will end up taking about 6 months and my husband will take the remaining 6 months just for financial reasons.

I should point out that this paid year off is only available to people who have worked a certain number of hours in a certain numbers of weeks prior to delivery...(really all you are getting is unemployment for a year, which is what you are entitled to if you are actually unemployed for a year...the only difference is that you aren't expected to be seeking work for that year).

[teflep]

May 14, 2012 21:25:30 GMT -5 emmybean said:

::::runs in to thread arms flailing::::

SABATICALS!!!!!!

:::collapses in heap:::

A family isn't defined by the addition of a new baby. And it isn't limited to immidiate blood relatives. And fostering a more "family friendly" country shouldn't rely on only caring for people at their worst.

A sabatical system takes a way the "entitlement" of maternity leave, and would allow everyone to foster their family as the best saw fit.

This I kind of like. I have a kid, but dont think I should get preferential treatment because of it (nor do I think my company should pay me for it or my government a bonus because of it). Families get a large number of deductions, especially those under a certain income, so I am not sure if more is needed in this arena. Tax reform is and would go a long way in helping families.

Funding education, like Title IID (you know, technology....nope, it is not needed. We are heading towards the stone age, I guess) and improving access to technology. Having a desire to go to e-textbooks by 2017 is great, but then you don't fund the program that would help this Arne? Bah.

[teflep]

May 15, 2012 10:24:38 GMT -5 ttt said:

May 15, 2012 10:21:44 GMT -5 @mjmksb04 said:

I don't know, some of us don't want to be on leave for a whole 6 months ( hopefully that doesn't earn me a bad mommy award) so if the gov't did adopt that policy, I could see doing
Baby bonus in lieu of that. Although I don't know if the government should do either.

I think plenty of people would not necessarily want to be on leave for 6 months, but it should still be available if you do want or need to.

I also like how Sweden and some other countries do it, where you have a certain number of months but you don't have to take them all at once - either you or your partner can take them any time before your child is five, I think. It would be great to know that you have that leave available should your child get sick, for example.

But why should parents get special treatment over, say, taking care of a sick parent. FMLA will allow for this, but not paid and these policies seem to only focus on kids.