A Convenient Application of ‘Family Values’

I have been bothered by the veto thing.

In the game of veto-upmanship, President Bush’s perfect record is on the line. I know this because the media play up the running score big. It’s become sport.

Say what you will about the Wimp Factor, George has knocked out the Democratic-controlled Congress 35 times, beating Lyndon Johnson’s record by five and Pretty Boy JFK’s by 14. At this writing, the 36th override vote--will George’s perfect record stand?--could happen at any time.

The numbers have taken on a life of their own and their historical import hangs heavy on Capitol Hill.

After all, although Franklin Roosevelt vetoed the most bills, 635, Congress overrode nine. Whiggerly Millard Fillmore, on the other hand, never saw a bill he did not sign.

I wouldn’t be surprised if these and other exciting statistics make their way to the back of trading cards soon.

Perhaps George’s photograph could show him resting a booted foot on a pregnant worker’s belly, while raising both of his fists in the air. Caption it, “Family Leave Act. Bush Says Not Even Family Will Bump Him From Veto Top Rank.”

Yes, this is a joke. On us all.

No wonder the President’s men have quietly dropped the “family values” rhetoric from the campaign speeches of late. Realpolitik has hammered the warm and fuzzy stuff once again.

(Hmmm. . . . Wonder how the Bush card would fare against Reagan’s in a trade? Let’s see, Reagan had 64 vetoes, and nine overrides, but then again, he was in office for two terms, whereas Bush. . . . )

The latest Bush veto that Congress has tried--and failed--to override was about family values in the most basic, and minimal, sense.

Its bottom line was this: Family comes first, if you want it to, and if you can afford to put it there, and if you don’t think that by actually going ahead with it, you would unduly damage your career.

(Witness the decidedly underwhelming number of American fathers who, when given the chance, avail themselves of extended paternity leave.)

The Family Leave Act would have guaranteed minimum job protection for workers who chose to take as many as 12 weeks off without pay. This would be after childbirth, or adoption, or if an immediate family member were to fall seriously ill.

Some states, including California, already have such a compassionate unpaid leave policy in place. The idea behind the federal bill was to guarantee all workers minimal family leave protection, regardless of where they live.

And studies repeatedly show that from a business standpoint, compassion pays. It’s more cost-effective to hang on to trained workers than to replace them and train anew.

But Bush thought the notion too radical. It would be hard on business, he said. It would have applied to companies with 50 employees or more.

Which would have exempted 95% of employers in the land.

And employees would have to work for a company for at least a year before they could take any such time off.

But Bush said the bill would hinder our nation’s ability to compete in the global economy. And in the end, he said, that would be bad for all of us.

So, in other words, when your dying parent, or your hospitalized child, or your newborn baby professes to need you, I suggest that you just tell them something like this:

Hang on there! Yes, I love you. But my employer, and our nation’s economy, needs me on the job. And you know I can’t afford to quit. Heck, even taking a few weeks off without pay would be really tough. But, don’t worry, our President says that the rewards of our sacrifice will begin to trickle down. Soon. I mean, I hope.

Not that the President is a cruel man, he says. To prove it, he recently proposed his own family leave plan--in the form of tax credits to businesses that adopt similar family leave policies voluntarily.

Count on hearing about this in the presidential debates. But I’m with Rep. Pat Schroeder (D-Colo.), who calls the Bush counterproposal the President’s “asbestos underwear. . .to cover his backside during a campaign.”

Bill Clinton, by the way, has supported the Family Leave Act. (No word on his underwear here.)

But the issue of really nurturing family values--instead of just making flowery speeches when the polls say it’s time--has been around, with a solution past due.

The family leave bill has been bumping around Congress for seven years now. Bush vetoed an earlier version two years ago, so his latest thumbs-down was hardly a shock.

The bill was an attempt, albeit a weak one, to give Americans some of the benefits that European workers have long enjoyed. And I make this comparison only in the loosest sense.

With the exception of Britain, for example, every country in the European Community guarantees paid maternity leave at between 70% to 100% of a woman’s normal salary for between three and five months. In Britain, most women receive six weeks of leave at 90% of their earnings, although they may take less pay for up to 29 weeks.

Yet in America, still, it seems only the rich can really value family without the threat of losing their jobs. One would think this were the Third World.