CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese

90%

10%

President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump

80%

20%↓

CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*

90%

CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*

90%

CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks

40%

30%

20%

CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg

30%↑

15%↑

10%↓

CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank

50%↓

50%↑

CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*

90%

CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen

85%↑

 

CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi

60%↑

35%↓

30%↑

State Senate Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

80%

20%

State House Majority See Full Big Line

DEMOCRATS

REPUBLICANS

95%

5%

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
March 30, 2017 02:20 PM UTC

Bennet Bites Back Over "Auto IRA" Plans

  • 5 Comments
  • by: Colorado Pols
Sens. Cory Gardner (left) and Michael Bennet.

A behind-the-scenes battles in Washington that could have impacts on upcoming legislative debates in Colorado–not to mention existing policy in several other states–flared up today. The U.S. Senate voted to overturn an Obama-era easing of regulations to allow local governments to set up retirement savings plans for workers that don’t otherwise have coverage. Politico wrote about this under-reported fight this week:

As soon as this week, the Senate is poised to overturn two Department of Labor rules that concern retirement savings. But instead of tying firms in red tape, the rules actually reduce the burden of regulations on states and businesses trying to help people save for retirement. So repealing them would put the obstructive regulations right back in place.

The disagreement stems from laws passed in five states—California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon—that require employers without 401(k)-style retirement plans to automatically enroll their workers in state-run retirement accounts. The idea is to create a new, automatic retirement-saving option for themillions of workers who don’t have access to any kind of retirement plan that deducts from their paycheck. (Though auto-enrolled, workers could opt out.)

Those laws might not seem like they’d involve the federal government at all, except that a 1974 law, the Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), ties employers up in a number of rules if they establish or maintain a worker’s retirement account. ERISA is intended to protect workers, but it also makes retirement plans more costly to run, and is a big part of why many smaller employers don’t offer 401(k) plans. When the five states passed the new savings law, firms started to worry they’d be held liable to ERISA standards, making the new laws just as expensive as running their own 401(k)s, even though they only function as middlemen.

So last fall, the Department of Labor issued two rules—one for states and one for municipalities—providing a “safe harbor” so that auto-IRA plans will not fall under burdensome ERISA requirements. These “safe harbor” rules are the ones the GOP wants to roll back.

Today, the Senate voted to re-impose the old rules on local governments who operate these kinds of savings plans–and Sen. Michael Bennet of Colorado took to social media to condemn the move:

Colorado’s other U.S. Senator Cory Gardner voted the other way–but there’s reportedly some hope he might be brought around to support state-based retirement plans on a separate but related measure the Senate hasn’t yet voted on. This could all become first-person relevant to Colorado with legislation introduced in the state legislature, House Bill 17-1290, which would create a Colorado Secure Savings Plan. It’s our understanding that the bill does have a provision for dealing with changes from Washington, but obviously it wouldn’t be desirable.

These locally-administered “auto IRA” programs have support from progressive economics and fiscal policy groups, since they give workers without other long-term retirement savings options a low-overhead way to participate–which pays major dividends later in life both for workers and governments who would otherwise pay to support them in retirement. Bennet is on the right side with his Democratic base here, and we’ll be watching to see if he can peel Sen. Gardner off before the next vote.

Wouldn’t that be a refreshing change?

Comments

5 thoughts on “Bennet Bites Back Over “Auto IRA” Plans

  1. What is stopping anyone who wants to open an IRA from opening one right now?

    This is more nanny statism. I don't need the government's help to save for retirement.

    1. Moldyanus.   This was about local control over IRAs.   The opposite of nanny stateism.   You worry about immigrants not understanding English when it becomes clear you are incapable of understanding it.

       

      Btw. I am still waiting for you to provide arguments from reputable sources to support your argument that ACA is failing.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments


Posts about

Donald Trump
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert
SEE MORE

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado House
SEE MORE

Posts about

Colorado Senate
SEE MORE

161 readers online now

Newsletter

Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!