Paid Family Leave: Who Has Got It Wrong, Hillary Clinton or Carly Fiorina?

CNN hosted the first Democratic presidential debate this week, and like former Hewlett-Packard executive Carly Fiorina before her, the lone woman onstage stole the show. Hillary Clinton landed jabs, easily handled tough questions, and generally came across as the most presidential. While these debate queens may never face off head-to-head, CNN’s Dana Bash brought the two into direct rhetorical confrontation when she asked paid family leave supporter Clinton this question: “Carly Fiorina, the first female CEO of a Fortune 50 company, argues, if the government requires paid leave, it will force small businesses to, quote, hire fewer people and create fewer jobs.’ What do you say not only to Carly Fiorina but also a small-business owner out there who says, you know, I like this idea, but I just can’t afford it?” Clinton responded that in places where the law is in effect it hasn’t had the “ill effects that the Republicans are always saying it will have.” So who’s right about paid leave, Carly Fiorina or Hillary Clinton? Glamour‘s resident Democrat, Krystal Marie Ball, and Republican, S.E. Cupp, battle it out in their latest Political Words With Friends column.

Hillary Clinton with husband President Bill Clinton, daughter Chelsea, and son-in-law Marc at her campaign kick-off rally this spring

KB: Let’s get right to it: I thought one of the more interesting debate moments was when Hillary was asked to respond to Carly Fiorina on paid leave.

SE: Me too. I assume you approved?

KB: Absolutely! There are exactly three countries in the world that have no paid leave for moms after they have babies: Papua New Guinea, Suriname, and us! Isn’t it about time we changed that?

SE: Well for the record, I love paid family leave. I adore it. As Donald Trump would say, I “cherish” it. There is no arguing that allowing men and women to stay home with their newborn kids (or sick parents) is a good thing. However, like many Americans, I’m wary of government mandates. This one in particular, at a time when many are still struggling to recover from the economic crash, seems perilous. In fact, the National Federation of Independent Business Research Foundation examined multiple proposals to mandate paid leave and concluded it could cost between 12,000 and 16,000 jobs over several years. That makes me very nervous. Why not allow the companies who have determined they can afford it voluntarily do so, instead of forcing small businesses to choose between new hires and costly benefits?

KB: But we don’t have to guess what the impact would be, as Hillary aptly pointed out, California has had paid leave since 2002 and none of those scary predicted effects materialized. In fact, small businesses were more likely to say the law was good for them than big businesses.

SE: While California is a big state (and so a useful model) it still isn’t the entire country. I can’t imagine businesses in states like Alaska and North Dakota being able to support (another) costly federal mandate. But I think the best argument against mandated paid leave comes from proponents of it! Hillary and others like to say businesses that offer paid leave attract better talent—so why not let them compete in a free market and outperform their competitors who do not offer it? There’s a reason Ernst & Young, Google, and (my CNN employer!) Turner Broadcasting System, to name a few, voluntarily offer paid leave—because it’s good for their business. Why mandate something that’s already proving popular in the private sector?

Also: Man, my boobs were gigantic, right after having my son.

Cupp with her son, Jack, and her CNN colleague Wolf Blitzer, who hosts The Situation Room

KB: Love that picture and your boobs. But, putting your boobs aside, that’s actually a big part of the problem here. Paid leave is popular for high-paying jobs but not for low-wage jobs and those workers are the ones who need it most. Only 12 percent of American workers get paid leave and only 5 percent of the lowest paid workers get paid leave. All moms and dads deserve to be able to spend time with their new babies. I know you’re against abortion, if we want people to have their babies, shouldn’t we help support them and their new families?

More of your boobs and my pregnant belly!

Ball, left, with Cupp at the White House Correspondents Dinner in 2013

SE: Ah, they were a nice size then. Luckily, they’ve returned (for the most part). Well I don’t have to tell you that abortion is not the only solution to an unwanted pregnancy. Adoption is a beautiful alternative. But, you’re right that so far the majority of companies that can voluntarily offer paid sick leave are those EVIL GIANT CORPORATIONS that Clinton and Bernie Sanders routinely lambaste as greedy capitalists! But doesn’t that prove my point? If a business could afford to offer paid leave, wouldn’t they? Perhaps we should wait for a more significant economic recovery before requiring businesses to offer these generous benefit packages they can’t afford?

KB: So when would be the right time to do it? Lots of businesses in California and now New Jersey that didn’t offer paid leave before and now are forced to offer it through their state government overlords have managed to pull off the change without going under. 80 percent of Americans including 71 percent of your Republican brothers and sisters say the time is right to make this change now. The only reason it’s not law already considering its popularity is because of how influential big business money is in our politics.

SE: Well as we’ve both pointed out here, “big business” like Hewlett-Packard, Citi, Merrill Lynch is already coming around to this idea. I believe, like you, that paid family leave is popular and beneficial enough that, in time, the free market will deem it necessary to attract and keep talent without a mandate. That’s not a punt or pie-in-the-sky either. There are plenty of examples of best practices emerging out of the private sector without government intervention because they are both good for society and good for the bottom line. The markets are much better influencers of behavior than government is—let’s allow them to work and I bet we’ll both get what we want in short time: more time at home with our kids!

KB: Well we’ve sure been waiting a long damn time for the all-knowing markets, which have brought us previous efficiencies like nearly crashing the world economy—

SE: —Wait, I thought liberals thought Bush crashed the world economy?

KB: —to come around to the idea. Shall we (paid) leave it there?

SE: As long as it’s voluntary.

Krystal Marie Ball is a former MSNBC anchor and 2010 candidate for Congress. S.E. Cupp is a CNN political commentator and the host of S.E. Cupp’s Outside With Insiders on CNN.com. Their column, Political Words With Friends, appears bi weekly on Glamour’s The 51 Million platform.

Tell us what you think! Share your thoughts in the comments—or tweet them @krystalball, @secupp, and @glamourmag including the hashtag #51million.

Read more of Krystal Marie Ball and S.E. Cupp’s Political Words With Friends columns:

What the Lack of Women on Late-Night TV Means for Election 2016

Carly Fiorina Dominated That Debate. Might She Be Your Republican Nominee?

Would Women Dump Hillary Clinton for Joe Biden If He Ran?

Can We Talk About Donald Trump’s Woman Problem?