His CV makes it pretty clear he's cool with government involvement in the lives of free individuals and private organizations and is one of these wonks whose concern for big-picture aspects of life such as health and work incline him toward seeing them as "public policy" rather than givens of human existence most effectively dealt with by individual choice-making.
He makes his premise clear at the outset by trotting out the kind of all-the-other-kids-in-the-class-are-doing-it factoid that collectivists always think are going to be compelling:
The United States is one of two countries without a national policy providing new mothers with rights to paid leave following the birth of a child. Most industrialized nations also offer fathers paid time off the job (although often much less than mothers).From there, assuming he's established an irrefutable premise, he looks at how the particulars might be worked out: how incremental it should be, how widespread eligibility should be, and the like.
You get the idea.
What I'd like to share with you is the comment thread underneath. Lately, when I've done that, it's to show what a bunch of boneheads are chiming in on the subject at hand. Today, however, at least the first several commenters have much more clarity on the basic principle of liberty than the essay's author:
It all goes back to what ought to be the first law of economics in any school thereof:
Discussion: (4 comments)
A good or service is worth what buyer and seller agree that it is worth. Period. No other entity - certainly not government - has any business being involved in coming to that agreement.
I hope more folks weigh in on this.
I really do not understand how one of the most important organizations for the defense of freedom got involved with this.
Maybe it happened over lunch in some tony Beltway eatery, washed down with a refreshing glass of Potomac water.