President Donald Trump’s first full budget is dead on arrival on Capitol Hill — and that’s probably for the best.

The budget has been rejected by legislators on both sides of the aisle, albeit for very different reasons. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., rejected the budget because he deemed its $603 billion defense request inadequate. Democrats decried its plan to lower nondiscretionary spending by $54 billion, namely by reducing funding for agencies such as the National Institutes for Health and eliminating funds for others such as the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program.

The accompanying commentary proudly proclaims that the president will balance the budget without making cuts to either Medicare or Social Security, but the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget argued that these policies will not be enough to address the nation’s massive debt, partly because it relies on “phony” growth projections and unachievable program cuts.

Federal agencies such as the U.S. Department of Labor would have to contend with drastic cuts if the president’s budget, or something like it, ever passed. The department’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration appears to have been largely spared by the Trump budget, but its Susan Harwood Training Grant Program, which provided $10.5 million in federal safety and health training grants last September, would lose its funding.

But there are some positive elements in the president’s budget that Congress should not dismiss out of hand. Thanks to a major push by his daughter and adviser, Ivanka Trump, the budget proposes requiring states to provide six weeks of paid family leave for new parents — a proposal that aims to fulfill a key campaign pledge of the president.

Only 13% of private-sector workers have access to paid family leave, according to a 2016 report by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. But states such as California and New York, along with the District of Columbia, have or will soon implement paid family leave programs, and the Trump budget would give the laggards latitude in designing their own programs.

The Trump proposal is far from perfect. Its cost would be offset by a still-unclear set of reforms to the unemployment insurance system to reduce improper payments and get unemployed workers jobs more quickly. As someone who has been laid off three times in her career, I know it would not be helpful to employees, especially those in particularly challenged industries, if paying for the program resulted in a reduction in the number of weeks they would otherwise be eligible for benefits. And employers could face sharp increases in unemployment insurance tax rates to pay for the proposal.

Still, it’s a decent start. Legislators such as House Speaker Paul Ryan have loudly opposed family leave proposals in the past, but considering and adopting such a program would go a long way toward remaking the image of a GOP often tagged as mean-spirited for proposed cuts to health and social welfare programs. And in a deeply divided Washington, it may be one of the few areas where Republicans and Democrats can work together to get something done.