New Democrat Update

PARENTAL LEAVE IS GOOD FOR BUSINESS

State Sen. Peter Groff and Rep. Terrance Carroll are pushing an innovative idea that gives parents time to take an active part in the education of their children - one of the most important factors for a kid’s success in school. Their proposal, modeled after the highly successful federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA), allows mothers and fathers to take unpaid leave from work to attend parent-teacher conferences and any other school activities that improve their child’s education.

With both parents working - or a single parent doing all the work and child care - responsibilities at home and on the job are increasingly in conflict. As the economy raises the premium (and the reward) for dedication to work, more and more parents understandably feel they are shortchanging their children and their future.

Some Democrats in the legislature have expressed reservations that supporting unpaid leave might be perceived as being “anti-business.” However, that very same argument was made by Republicans when FMLA was proposed by President Bill Clinton in 1993. Since then, family and medical leave, one of the most popular initiatives of the Clinton administration, has become part of the landscape of American life, and any costs associated with it certainly did not interfere with the longest business boom since the 1960s.

Far from being a drag on the economy, there is evidence to show that leave actually increases workforce participation and the employee’s attachment to his or her employer. A Families and Work Institute study, conducted five years after FLMA went into effect, found that 84 percent of employers concluded that the benefits of providing family and medical leave offset or outweighed the costs.

While companies will face some disruptions since they have to find temporary replacements for workers taking leave, many businesses have also experienced reduced employee turnover, enhanced productivity, and improved morale. Studies have confirmed that the costs of hiring a new employee (such as advertising, interviewing, and training) are far greater than the cost of providing short-term leave to retain existing workers. This holds true for low-income employees as well as highly-paid, skilled professionals.

In addition to enhancing the state’s overall quality of life, unpaid leave for school activities will make Colorado a much more attractive place to work and, consequently, do business. In an information-age economy, that should more than offset the potential small marginal increase in the cost of doing business.

The other argument that this issue should be left up to employers also does not hold water. It is true that some companies are aware of employees' concerns about work-family tensions, and many have introduced benefits aimed at easing workers’ burdens. Unfortunately, many of these efforts are too limited, either in scope or applicability, to make a real difference to employees. For example, almost all low-income parents work in service industries where unpaid leave is simply not available.

Besides, this measure accommodates many employer needs. Workers are limited to two hours per leave and no more than a total of 15 hours a year. Businesses with less than 50 employees are exempt.

In addition to the public policy merits, the politics of unpaid leave makes sense for Democrats. Right now, married parents vote Republican by a nearly 2-to1 margin. To build a lasting progressive majority coalition, Democrats must start doing much better than that.

Advocating family-friendly initiatives that help parents balance work and family will help. It sends the important and necessary message that our party recognizes the worth and dignity of what parents do. It also acknowledges that parents have the primary responsibility for raising their children and appreciates their contributions and the work-family issues with which they must contend.

Democrats should support parental leave for the school activities of children. It makes sense for parents, kids and the business community. It’s also good politics.

TURNING PURPLE

It is well known that Colorado Democrats had a resounding victory last November. In addition to the election of Ken and John Salazar to Congress, Democrats took over the majority in both houses of the state legislature - the only place in the country where that happened for either party.

Those victories overshadowed another significant development. While President Bush won Colorado again, his margin over the Democratic nominee narrowed considerably - even after adjusting for the “Ralph Nader factor” (Exit polls indicate that half of Nader’s 2000 vote would have gone to Gore, a quarter to Bush and the remainder staying home). How the gap closed might be even more important.

The Census Bureau classifies Colorado counties as either metropolitan areas (having an urbanized center that has more than 50,000 people) or micropolitan areas (a small-town oriented county with a population center between 10,000 and 49,999 people). The remaining counties can be considered rural areas.

Sen. John Kerry’s increased margins in the state’s metropolitan areas, compared to Vice President Al Gore’s performance in 2000, followed the pattern of the rest of the country. The uniqueness of Colorado is what happened in its micropolitan areas.

As shown by Mark Gersh’s analysis in the latest Blueprint (which inspired this look at Colorado), Bush increased his micropolitan victory margin by a whopping 47 percent in 16 battleground states. In sharp contrast, the president’s 2004 micropolitan edge here in Colorado declined by over 10 percent. That’s a 57 percent difference.

Kerry’s performance in our state’s rural areas should fuel Democratic hopes even more. There, he closed Bush’s margin by almost nine percent.

It is no wonder local Republicans are turning so purple. Colorado is looking more and more like a blue state - even beyond Denver and Boulder.

THE COLORADO GOP: ANTI-MIDDLE CLASS

Both Republican U.S. Senators and all GOP congresspeople received a “F” for their votes on behalf of the middle class in 2004, according to the 2nd annual legislative scorecard released last month by the non-partisan Drum Major Institute for Public Policy (DMI). The votes, among others, included increasing financial aid for college, restoring fiscal responsibility to the federal government, providing middle-class tax relief and fighting corporate welfare. The DMI, founded during the civil rights movement, focuses on challenging the tired orthodoxies of both the right and the left.

"The middle class is in danger of being completely overwhelmed by higher prices and stagnant wages, making it even harder for working Americans to climb their way up the economic ladder," said DMI chairman and former Atlanta Mayor Andrew Young. "Yet, the middle class was a casualty of unusually polarized ideological battles in 2004, where party-line votes were the norm and bipartisan cooperation was rare.”

In stark contrast to their GOP colleagues (one “good” vote prevented the entire House Republican delegation from getting a perfect zero), Democrats did much better for those families earning between $25,000-$100,000 a year. U.S. Rep. Mark Udall scored an impressive 86% to lead the state delegation while Rep. Diana DeGette always sided with the middle class (She got an “Incomplete” by missing three other votes on the DMI scorecard).

Two of the state Republicans who got “0's,” U.S. Reps. Bob Beauprez and (former) Scott McInnis are seriously considering running for governor in 2006. Should either become the nominee, Democrats should take each and every opportunity to remind voters of that dismal record.

Colorado does not need another governor who disregards the middle class. The last eight years have been more than enough.