[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Since molson already did so:

And I answered that in the post above yours.

The clear implication of your posts is that since Ryan has refused to mandate family leave imposed on employers by the government, that he should refuse to negotiate his own work-life balance.

"Clear"? Really?

There are two potential implications to what I wrote in criticism of Ryan. One is that he should, as you say, refuse to negotiate his own work-life balance, and one is that he should review and revise his stance on related legislation. I have now on several occasions confirmed that I would prefer he did the latter, though at the time I was advocating for neither one.

Again, the fact that you assumed the less realistic of the two potential argument was the one I supported says more about you than it does about me.

Frankly, I don't think you really understand the Republican position on this at all. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, this is quite a obvious consistent position that the party has.

I understand it quite fine. Free market. Small government (except for interference in women's health, of course). But, again, as I wrote, the very fact that decades of legislation along these lines which has not produced the desired outcome (assuming, of course that Ryan and/or the GOP want an outcome of better work/life balance for working families) should, in a normal world, perhaps make people reconsider their positions.

It's not as if Ryan doesn't understand this, given the benefits he's given to his own staff.

In answer to your other question, an example of benefits gained by every Senator (at least) that the public does not is that all members of Congress who serve up to 5 years receive a pension (defined benefit) when they hit 62 years of age. Though, in order to qualify for Social Security, you must work at least 10 years (that's how long it takes for 40 quarters). There is, of course, no mandate that private companies pay a pension for employees.

Yep, that's bullshit, and especially given the fact that like 95% of Congresspeople are independently wealthy (or can easily become so after serving), there's no need for a pension.