Family-leave program needs funding source

Creation of paid family leave to care for a newborn or newly adopted baby was a bold step forward by the 2007 Legislature.

But a new program like paid leave is meaningless unless lawmakers decide how to pay for it. And now it appears that legislators have punted on that question two years in a row. The political reality is that lawmakers are hesitant to raise taxes or impose a new payroll tax to pay for family leave — and they are especially loath to do so in an election year.

The underlying issue is very important. Giving new moms and dads five weeks of paid leave to bond with their child is an important public policy decision. Repeated studies show that initial bonding time is critically important for the long-term growth and development of the child.

So the merits of family leave are not much in question. What is in dispute is whether employees should use their vacation and sick time to bond with their newborn, or whether they should be paid $250 a week for their time away from work. If paid family leave is the answer, where’s the state going to get the $40 million to $45 million a year to pay that wage supplement to parents?

Last year, a broad coalition of health professionals, parental advocates, unions, seniors and others came to the Legislature with a sweeping family-leave proposal. They pushed a bill that would have not only given parents time off from work to care for a newborn or newly adopted child, but also allowed workers to take paid family leave to care for a seriously ill family member.

That proposal was well received in the Senate but was shot down by in the state House of Representatives.

What finally emerged from the 2007 session was a much watered down bill that called for the creation of a paid family-leave program effective in October 2009 that was restricted to new parents. While there was some consideration of a payroll tax to pay for the program, the final bill had no permanent funding source. The governor has since said she wants any payroll tax put to a vote of the people.

A task force was assigned the job of identifying a funding source. While the members agreed to have the state Department of Employment Security govern the program, they could not come to a consensus on the pivotal question of who pays for family leave.

And last week Rep. Mary Lou Dickerson, D-Seattle, co-chair of the task force and a strong advocate for families, admitted that there will be no funding bill in the 2008 session.

Supporters can spin that any way they want, but the reality is lack of a permanent funding source for family leave is a huge defeat.

Once again, the state is left with a valuable family leave program and no way to pay for it. And that just proves the old adage: Talk is cheap.