Federal paid leave bill is an affront

Excuse us if our commentary trespasses just a bit into hyperbole, but it feels like blunt language is necessary to wake people up - and especially to wake up the politicians who respond to special interests rather than their constituencies.

There's a bubbling economic divide that threatens to erupt one of these days, and if it does, we dare say it won't be prompted so much by the gulf between rich and poor. Rather, it will be sparked by the growing distance between the public and private sectors. There are countless examples of the rising entitlement of government employees.

Consider, as just one, police pensions that provide retirement benefits far more comfortable and at a much younger age than those any private-sector employees can expect. They are mandated by Springfield, threaten now to almost bankrupt our municipalities and dig into each of our pockets - paid for by taxpayers who, in many cases, don't know how they will pay for their own retirements. But that is just one example.

In almost any area, public employee benefits are out of synch with those in the private sector - whether it's sick time that gets paid even if the government employee doesn't get sick, vacation time, educational cost reimbursements, pensions or what have you. What set us off on this today? Listen to this.

A couple of weeks ago, the U.S. House passed a bill that makes eight of the 12 weeks of parental leave for federal workers paid absences. Certainly, this shows how out of touch officials in Washington are.

The country's in a sharp economic downturn. Gasoline prices are stretching taxpayers' wallets.

The government is deeply into deficit spending.

Many employers are reducing the size of their work forces and freezing pay.

And the House deems it a good time to spend money on the country's largest work force, employees of the federal government.

Proponents argue this merely matches the benefits provided in the private sector, but that's really not the case; those benefits in the private sector are usually paid through disability insurance programs.

Sadly, some members of our suburban delegation were part of this payback to the government employee unions - representatives Melissa Bean of Barrington, Bill Foster of Geneva, Mark Kirk of Wilmette and Jan Schakowsky of Evanston.

And in the Senate, Dick Durbin of Springfield is one of the co-sponsors of companion legislation that has cut that paid leave in half but still would legislate the concept.

What are they thinking? Are they that out of touch?

Thank goodness for the common sense of representatives Judy Biggert of Hinsdale, Don Manzullo of Egan and Peter Roskam of Wheaton.

They each voted "no" and we're glad they did.