From APP executive director Terry Schilling’s op-ed in The Federalist:

Amelia Irvine criticized Republican Sen. Marco Rubio’s paid family leave plan in The Federalist on Thursday. Her criticism generally missed the mark, although some of her concerns about the solvency of Social Security are valid.

Earlier this month, Rubio and Republican Rep. Ann Wagner introduced the Economic Security for New Parents Act, legislation which would create a much-needed option for paid family leave. After the birth or adoption of a child, new parents would be allowed to pull forward a portion of their own contributions to Social Security to use for at least two months of paid leave, delaying the eventual date at which they begin receiving Social Security upon retirement by a corresponding amount of time.

The Republican Alternative for Paid Family Leave

This move comes just as Democrats are ramping up support for their own paid family leave proposals ahead of the midterm elections. Last year, Democratic Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand introduced a bill that would raise taxes and create a brand new entitlement program. These types of big government programs place an extra burden on employers and employees and end up hurting the very people they claim to support.

Given these circumstances, Rubio and Wagner were wise to understand that Republicans needed to adopt their own paid family leave plan. And let’s be clear: The New Parents Act is a smart proposal. It’s not a tax increase. It’s not a new entitlement. Its funding mechanism is deficit neutral in the long-run.

But most importantly, the New Parents Act is a conservative, pro-family solution to a real problem — it lessens the financial burden on working parents of having children and makes it easier for them to return to the workforce (and continue contributing to Social Security) without losing traction in their careers.

Read the full op-ed here.