That this aspect of the debate has been virtually ignored demonstrates how thoroughly we have been conditioned to Big Government involving itself in people’s lives.
I couldn’t have put it any better. Paid parental leave effectively makes the government a direct partner in the business of having a family.
That parents should base their decision to have children on the level of taxpayer support available to them represents a further erosion of individual responsibility. Metaphorically speaking, Nanny State might as well be standing in the bedroom during the act of procreation.
THAT MEDIA commentators have been overwhelmingly in favour of extending paid parental leave is no surprise, since many of them are from the demographic group that stands to benefit.
Supporters of the bill point out that extending the provisions would bring us into line with certain other countries. This is rarely a convincing argument, least of all when some of those countries are burdened with massive deficits caused by feel-good government handouts.
In the dynamic economies of Asia, which are rapidly overtaking the tired, social-democratic states of Europe that are held out as an example to us, the concept of paid parental leave would be viewed with astonishment.
A far more compelling argument is that babies are best looked after at home, and that society as a whole benefits. The problem, however, is that the current generation of parents has unrealistically high lifestyle expectations that demand two incomes.
It doesn’t occur to them to do what their parents did, which was to adjust their lifestyle so that one parent worked while the other stayed at home.
Instead, they see it as the taxpayers’ obligation to make it possible for them to enjoy the best of both worlds: have a family while still being able to afford two cars, a McMansion, a 42-inch flat-screen TV and an annual overseas holiday.