Why Can’t More Lawmakers Be Like These Guys ?!

Show of hands: who believes that lawmakers in Washington, D.C., are doing a good job governing our country?  If this fictitious exercise actually took place, I feel safe in predicting that most hands would remain firmly at our sides, in our laps, or perhaps in the arms-crossed pose that our children see when they have misbehaved.  In other words, not too many approving hands raised.

There are certainly those who believe that the current gridlock we are witnessing in our nation’s capitol is a net positive, and that failure to enact laws at the federal level means less government intrusion in our lives, a goal some feel is always worth seeking.  While it may be true that our lives are sometimes over-regulated and interfered with and that “less is more,” our world truly is much more complex economically, socially and politically than the world our country’s founders faced when they set up our form of government.  While less government intrusion may be desired, it still takes a functioning government to keep our nation strong, competitive, and in-step with the rest of the world.  Few would characterize the current lack of cooperation, the intolerance for differences of opinion, and sometimes outright bitterness in Washington, as conducive to a functioning government.  

One notable exception to this partisan dysfunction is being demonstrated by two lawmakers, each from a different party, and each from a different body of Congress.  They are perhaps more visible to those in our industry because they share a legislative priority—retirement security—that is vital to us.  But, even putting any special interest aside, they seem to behave like statesmen of old; respectful, constructive, realistic, practical lawmakers who want to get a job done.  A job they believe is in the best interest of the American taxpayer.

Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) and Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) have each introduced similar, if not quite “matching bookends” legislation in their respective congressional bodies, bills primarily intended to simplify and enhance retirement saving.  And, hoped for as a natural outcome, to yield better retirement preparedness for American workers.    

The details of their bills, H.R. 2117 and S. 1270, are not the point to be made here.  Suffice it to say they share more similarities than differences, are geared toward making employer-sponsored plans more available to American workers, to make plan administration simpler and more straightforward, and provide genuine incentives to put away more dollars for retirement purposes.

Perhaps the most encouraging thing about these long-time lawmakers is that they “get it” when it comes to the real impact retirement saving has on the U.S. budget.  Some lawmakers, journalists and policy wonks label retirement saving as a cost—a loss—in terms of federal tax revenue, and a significant contributor to our federal budget deficit.  Some of these lawmakers would greatly curtail tax-advantaged retirement saving.  Hatch and Neal recognize that tax-deferred saving is not a loss to the budget, but simply moving taxation “down the lunch line,” to be taxed in a later year when assets are withdrawn by a retiree, or by a saver who needs these assets prior to leaving employment.  Never mind the fact that retirement saving is a HUGE contributor to the capital formation upon which much business and personal lending is based, and is there for,  a great cog in our country’s economic engine.

Imagine, lawmakers who have truly done their homework on an issue that is vital to our citizens’ security, and to our economy as a whole; lawmakers whose vision reaches across party lines, and across congressional boundaries.  Show of hands if you’d like to see more lawmakers in Washington, D.C., govern like these guys.  Thought so!

Academic Freedom, Or Retirement Plan Harassment?

It’s probably safe to say that most who get letters from Yale University are eager to receive them.  They are likely to be prospective college students, hoping they’re about to learn they’ve been accepted into this prestigious Ivy League school.  It’s equally safe to say that the 6,000 or so retirement plan administrators who recently got letters from a Yale Law School professor were not only very surprised, but were less than eager once they learned the letters’ contents.

These letters informed plan administrators that their plans were part of a study being conducted by a Yale Law School professor, the focus of which was excessive fees.  Of the three letter versions sent out by Professor Ian Ayres, one version boldly stated that the professor had “identified your plan as a potential high-cost plan,” and that it “ranked worse than X percent of plans.”  The letter went on to say that the professor intended to publicize the results of the study sometime in 2014 by releasing it to such publications as the New York Times and Wall Street Journal, and would “disseminate the results via Twitter with a separate hashtag for your company.”

Not surprising, the letter caused more than a little heartburn among even the most calm and conscientious plan administrators as they attempted to digest its meaning, including why they had received it, what they might have “done wrong” in administering their plan, and what negative fallout might be in their future. 

This plan-level bewilderment was soon transformed into industry-wide consternation, frustration and—justifiably—more than a little anger.   Not because the industry should be immune to scrutiny, whether from participants, regulatory agencies, the media, or even the academic community.  The displeasure generated by Professor Ayres’ letters was due both to flawed methodology in Professor Ayres’ study, and to its undeniably accusatory, inflammatory and intimidating tone.   

As intrusive as Professor Ayres study may seem to some, it would be wrong to suggest that the subject of retirement plan fees is “not his business.”  It is unquestionably in the public interest that retirement plans be properly run, in order that American workers have a chance to enjoy a financially secure retirement.  “Properly run” does include reasonable fees.”  What is not in the public interest is shoddy workmanship in the design and execution of a study whose stated purpose was to shed light on plan fees and whether or not they were reasonable. 

Among the statistical objections to Professor Ayres’ study is the fact that the data used is from 2009.  In the world of retirement plan fees and fee disclosure this is like road testing a long-out-of-production Rambler against a modern computer-regulated, flex-fuel consuming, state-of-the-art automobile.  Times have changed greatly and especially in the retirement plan industry. Fee disclosure and awareness has resulted in many changes in the industry since 2009.  Professor Ayres’ also looked at fees in a superficial manner, not taking into account the natural economies of scale created by larger plans having more participants, or plans with higher average balances.  Nor did the study weigh the fees charged against the menu of services provided to a plan.  Employee education, participant-tailored investment advice, and other services that are in some contractual arrangements—but not in others—can and do have a large impact on plan fees, many of which are justifiable and reasonable in light of the services received.

Yale Law School was contacted by industry representatives deeply concerned over the flaws in Professor Ayres’ study, and the damage that could be done to individual plans, their administrators and the plan participants, as well the image of the retirement industry as a whole.  Unfortunately, the Law School administration gave what some might characterize as a political response.  It stated that the letters sent by Professor Ayres did not represent the views of either Yale University of Yale Law School, but because Yale faculty “possess academic freedom to pursue their own research,” the institution “cannot either endorse or repudiate [his] research.” 

If Yale cannot—or will not—openly repudiate or question Professor Ayres’ research, perhaps somewhere between the lines of the university’s response one can hope that that it will convey to him the message that the quality and accuracy of his final product is likely to be scrutinized with a fine-tooth comb.  Yale itself does have a reputational stake in the outcome.

It might also be prudent for Professor Ayres to consider the fact that academic freedom granted by an educational institution is not a license to wrongly imply that a plan or a plan administrator is deficient in meeting its fiduciary responsibilities.  It would seem that Professor Ayres may be the party acting “unreasonably” in this case.  

EBSA Revenue Sharing Ruling is Helpful, But Questions Remain

Among the myriad investment options that can be made available to retirement plans and their participants, some have underlying fees built into them, such as marketing, distribution or shareholder servicing fees.  Portions of these fees might be paid to a service provider—such as a third party administrator or recordkeeper—for the services they provide both the plan and the investment provider.  In turn, receipt of such “revenue sharing”—as it is called—may enable these firms to charge lower direct fees to the retirement plans they service.

In today’s highly fee-sensitive environment, revenue sharing payments are receiving scrutiny, right along with the commissions and fees received by those who provide investment advice to retirement plan participants, account transaction fees, and any other types of costs that could potentially reduce a participant or beneficiary’s assets.  That is the world we live in, and most advisers and service providers don’t have a problem with reasonable oversight and disclosure of fees and compensation.

Revenue sharing, specifically, has received a great deal of attention lately, from both the Department of Labor (DOL) and the courts.  It is a requirement to report revenue sharing payments on Schedule C, Service Provider Information, of Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan, filed with the DOL.  Revenue sharing payments must also be disclosed as part of a service provider satisfying the 408(b)(2) regulations issued by the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA).

In early July of this year, EBSA issued Advisory Opinion 2013-03A, in which the agency provided some insight into how it views, at least in part, revenue sharing relationships and payments in the retirement plan environment. 

Adv. Opin. 2013-03A was issued to Principal Life Insurance Company, through its legal representatives.  EBSA was asked whether investment-related revenue sharing payments, such as 12b-1 fees, would be considered plan assets and also when they could be retained by Principal as compensation. Briefly, EBSA advised Principal that facts and circumstances would determine whether revenue sharing payments would be considered plan assets and could be retained as compensation by Principal. 

EBSA indicated that if there are no declarations or contractual terms promising that revenue sharing payments will be used to pay plan expenses, or will be paid to the plan itself, then such revenue payments would not be considered plan assets and could—in this analysis—be retained by Principal.  On the other hand, if—by communication or agreement, formal or otherwise—revenue sharing payments are supposed to benefit the plan by payment of plan expenses, or be paid into the plan, then a plan would have an enforceable claim for such amounts as plan assets, with the usual fiduciary obligations that entails. 
The Adv. Opinion went on to say that beyond any agreements or expectations regarding entitlement to revenue sharing payments, if a service provider were to influence investment selections in order to generate revenue sharing payments for its own benefit, this would be considered a prohibited transaction under ERISA.

This EBSA guidance is helpful and provides the industry with a better understanding of when revenue sharing payments may, or may not, be plan assets, and also how these payments can be used.  We also know that “the rest of the story” likely remains to be written.  There has been a fair amount of discussion within the industry concerning some things NOT found in Adv. Opin. 2013-03A.   Among these is the allocation and use of revenue sharing payments that are—in fact—paid to the plan, rather than being retained by a service provider, and how this should occur.  The complexity in addressing this issue lies in the fact that—in some plans—not all investment options yield revenue sharing payments and participants move in and out of various investments options, thereby individually generating different amounts of revenue sharing.  This raises the question of what these amounts can or should be used to pay for, and also how any “excess” should be used.  Based on the current EBSA guidance, there is no mandated method to follow and plan sponsors and service providers should use a an approach they determine to be reasonable and prudent for the use of and allocation of these amounts.  It would seem that a number of different alternatives would meet this standard until further guidance is provided.  More to come on this issue in the future.

Are Retirement Saving Incentives Incompatible With Tax Reform?

Anyone whose job requires tracking and evaluating legislation, may—sooner or later—consider the benefits of counseling, anti-depressants, or both.  It can be genuinely depressing to witness the developments, or more accurately the lack thereof, on Capitol Hill.  It is depressing on the one hand to witness the lack of cooperation and compromise among senators and representatives whose job it is to govern.  But it is similarly troubling to repeatedly hear from certain sectors that maintaining important Tax Code benefits—like retirement saving incentives—is incompatible with solving our nation’s budget problems, and putting our nation’s fiscal ship on a safe and sustainable course. 

We believe firmly that using tax benefits to encourage people to save for retirement and addressing the federal budget issues are not incompatible goals.   A closer look at the real nature of retirement saving incentives will show how much they differ from some of the other popular “perks” and “tax costs” contained in the Tax Code.  If lawmakers consider just ONE very singular difference, it should be a slam-dunk to maintain retirement saving incentives.  The question is whether lawmakers will take the time to really understand how they differ from other Tax Code incentives, some of which actually do result in lost federal tax revenues.

A close look at this issue is important because the nation seems headed in the direction of tax reform, later if not sooner.  There are multiple tax reform options that have been proposed, most of which—to varying degrees—could significantly restrict or revamp current retirement saving options.  One proposal is to sweep away all tax deductions and exclusions in favor of reduced tax rates, perhaps adding back the most critically important tax incentives.  Another would limit the maximum retirement saving accumulations in combined IRAs and employer plans, while yet another would reduce and cap annual tax deferrals and exclusions.  And there are more, all having the effect of limiting retirement saving tax benefits.

Most of these reform strategies are being proposed under the assumption that workers’ earnings that are deferred or excluded from income each year through retirement saving are lost to the federal revenue stream, and thereby are a “cost” in the grand federal budget-balancing equation.  

This is simply untrue, and a comparison with several other popular—and worthy—Tax Code incentives will demonstrate why.  Consider the universally popular home mortgage interest deduction, which all of us who have purchased a home have benefited from.  By deducting from our taxable income the interest portion of our home mortgage payments, we reduce our tax obligation.  But, in the bargain, the collection of federal tax revenues is reduced, permanently.  Is it a benefit to society to promote home ownership?  Certainly, both for tangible reasons of stimulating the economy, and the intangibles of neighborhood and broader social stability.  But make no mistake, the nation as a whole “pays” for this tax perk.

The same is true of charitable giving, as noble and as beneficial to society as sharing our resources with others may be.  Charitable giving deductions, like the home mortgage interest deduction, reduce taxable income, and thereby permanently reduce the federal tax revenues that such generous taxpayers would otherwise have contributed to the federal tax coffers.  I am not advocating taking away these very beneficial tax incentives that most would say provide a very useful and valuable social benefit but rather using them by way of comparison to the incentives provided for retirement savings. 

Consider, now, the deductions and exclusions for IRA or employer plan saving.  With the exception of Roth-type accounts, every dollar that is given a tax benefit in the year it is contributed to such a plan or account is taxed when it is withdrawn, either during the saver’s retirement years, or by a beneficiary.  Not only are such dollars taxed, but—in being spent by retirees or beneficiaries—they provide dollar-for-dollar stimulus to the economy. 

Furthermore, the assumption of some policy makers that such dollars will be taxed at a lower rate in the withdrawal years is not necessarily sound.  Many taxpayers with substantial retirement savings are NOT in lower taxing brackets after retirement, and beneficiaries—often younger and in their peak earning years—are unlikely to be in the lowest taxing brackets.

So, it cannot logically be argued that retirement saving represents a permanent loss to the nation’s budgetary process.  Therefore, it cannot logically and honestly be argued that tax reform and retirement saving are incompatible.  It is my fervent hope that Congress recognizes this before it throws the retirement saving “baby” out with the tax reform “bath water!”

DOMA Ruling Will Complicate Retirement Plan Compliance

 

Whatever your political or religious views on same-sex marriage, there is little doubt about one consequence of the Supreme Court ruling in United States v. Windsor. There will be significant complication in the administration of retirement plans, at least in the near term. The border-to-border consistency that DOMA provided in spouse-related retirement plan and other benefit plan rules is essentially gone now.   

 

The key element of the Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling is its conclusion that federal law—including those elements that pertain to retirement plans—must recognize same-sex spouses that are legally married under state law. This sounds straightforward, but—as we will see—it’s not that simple.  

 

Following are some of the effects of the DOMA decision in situations where same-sex partners are recognized as married. Bear in mind, the effects may be different in states that do not recognize these marriages. 

  

• The same-sex spouse of a participant in an ERISA-governed plan will have to be given primary beneficiary status unless they affirmatively waive this right.
• Spouse beneficiary options to treat an ERISA-governed plan account as their own, possibly for rollover to their own IRA or to another employer plan, must be honored.
•  In employer plans subject to the Retirement Equity Act (money purchase, defined benefit, and some profit sharing plans), a spouse will have to consent to any distribution that is not in the form of an annuity, and—as a surviving beneficiary—must waive receiving benefits in the form of an annuity.
• For IRAs administered in community or marital property states, a same-sex spouse would likely have to waive their right to be a primary beneficiary if he or she were to be excluded.

  

Some significant uncertainties remain after this decision. Most of these are a consequence of the fact that Windsor did not invalidate the DOMA provision that allows states to recognize only marriages valid under their own laws and disregard marriages that are valid under the laws of another state. The practical aspect of this leaves one with questions like how will the plan of a company based in a state not recognizing same-sex marriage treat an employee who is considered married under the laws of another state? Will a participant who moves from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage to a state that does not recognize the marriage acquire a different marital status for plan purposes? Could a plan, for the sake of uniformity and simplicity, be able to choose to recognize all legally married same-sex relationships, even if the state of domicile of the sponsoring business does not allow same-sex marriage, and does not recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere?

  

A number of plan operations and determinations will be affected, though to what extent may depend on further guidance. For instance, hardship distribution availability can be determined by spouse status; the required minimum distribution (RMD) rules are more flexible, both before and after participant death, with a spouse beneficiary; knowing the status of an individual as a spouse—or not—is vital in QDRO determinations; plan testing requires identification of HCEs, which can be influenced by the ownership attribution rules that apply to spouses. Needless to say, the reach and impact of the Supreme Court decision are only beginning to be understood. Another potential area of impact may be plan documents. If a plan has a DOMA based definition of spouse in the document, it will likely have to be amended. Will there be a reasonable remedial amendment period during which plans can make any changes to their governing documents that might be necessitated by the Windsor decision? We have to believe fairness will dictate that this be offered. 

 

Yet another issue relates to the terms domestic partnerships and civil unions? Will the word “marriage” in the Supreme Court’s Windsor ruling be pivotal in federal treatment of same-sex couples who are in state-recognized relationships that are substantially like marriages, but are not actually called marriages?  

 

In the IRA realm, consider an IRA document that states that the laws of the sponsoring financial organization’s headquarters state will be controlling if a dispute arises over rights or options. What will be the consequences if the IRA owner’s state law definition of marriage covers same-sex marriage, but the state where the financial organization is based does not?  

 

Beyond these and other unanswered questions that Windsor has left us, it’s highly likely that we will see more litigation on same-sex marital rights. Already, another case is brewing in Nevada that could go to the heart of whether the U.S. Constitution is violated if states dictate who their citizens may marry. We will likely also see more state legislation and constitutional actions, either to affirm, or to deny, same-sex marriage rights, as activists on both sides see urgency and opportunity.  

  

Hold on, for what may be a long and bumpy ride.

Auto-Enrollment Critics Miss a Major Point

These days it’s pretty common to hear or read a financial writer, academic, or policy wonk, criticize defined contribution retirement plans.  Service provider revenue sharing arrangements, investment fees and performance, participant inexpertise, tax cost, or what-have-you, have all become grist for the critic’s mill.  One of the more suspect criticisms is the charge that automatic enrollment 401(k)-type plans—also known as automatic contribution arrangements, or ACAs—are lowering contribution rates in employer-sponsored retirement plans.  This is the premise of an article in the Wall Street Journal in May of this year, repeating a charge that appeared in the same publication in 2011.  That 2011 article was the most brazen, and was entitled “401(k) Law Suppresses Saving for Retirement,” claiming that the Pension Protection Act (PPA) “is actually reducing savings for some people.”

To take a script page from the late radio personality Paul Harvey, there is a “rest of the story” that deserves equal time.  The most important objective of those who have been supporters of automatic enrollment is to bring more employees into retirement plans, even if only in a modest way.  The logic is that once they have become participants, and see their retirement account balances growing, they will remain in the plan, hopefully becoming more informed, perhaps even more aggressive savers. 

Automatic enrollment detractors cite the fact that average deferral percentages for U.S. retirement plan participants have in some cases declined from pre-auto-enrollment days.  Many plans that have implemented automatic enrollment have set the initial deferral rate at 3% of compensation.  Because many existing participants in 401(k)-type plans defer at levels higher than 3%, an influx of many new participants deferring at this lower rate must—by the nature of statistics and the law of averages—reduce the overall average.   

This does not mean that everyone is deferring at the lower rate.  What it really means is that more are deferring, and those deferring at a lower rate are dragging the average down somewhat.  Another criticism is that some participants take the path of least resistance and enter the plan via automatic enrollment—at a low deferral rate—when they might otherwise have deferred at higher rates if they had entered the plan by making an affirmative election.  And, inertia being what it is, some may not revisit the issue and take advantage of the opportunity to increase their deferral rates.    The “cure” for this, if a cure is needed, may be for plans to consider setting their initial automatic enrollment rates higher than 3% or to implement automatic deferral increases that occur after the initial deferral period. 

Critics need to realize that new concepts take time to reach their potential, to work out initial kinks, and eventually reach the optimum.  Thomas Edison is reported to have said about his inventive endeavors: “I haven’t failed.  I’ve found 10,000 ways that don’t work.”  PPA, it must be remembered, was enacted in 2006, its provisions mostly taking effect for 2007 and later years.  It will take time to reach the optimum.

Some members of Congress seem to see this, and have proposed tweaks to the Internal Revenue Code to help automatic enrollment reach its potential.  For example, Rep. Richard Neal’s Retirement Plan Simplification and Enhancement Act of 2013 (H.R. 2117) has provisions that would encourage setting initial automatic enrollment rates at higher levels.  New plan testing exemptions, and a special tax credit, would be available for plans that set initial automatic enrollment deferral rates at 6%, and raise them—subject to employee opt-out, of course—in following years.

Without bashing the media, it sometimes seems like publications and their reporters are looking for the sensational headline, the calamity, the failure, or the threatening, as a means to capture reader or viewer attention.  With something as important as Americans’ retirement security, thoughtful reporting rather than sensationalism needs to rule the printed page and the broadcasting airwaves.

President’s Budget Includes More Than at First Met the Eye

No matter whom the occupant of the White House happens to be, that person seems bound to please some, while displeasing others.  This is the case with just about any decision or proposal made by the Chief Executive.  It was certainly the case when President Obama’s 2014 fiscal year budget proposal was released, and it became evident that it would break some new ground with respect to retirement savings provisions.

The president’s proposal of a dollar cap on tax-advantaged retirement accumulations, and also a limit of 28 percent on any taxpayer’s benefit for income tax deductions and exemptions, were immediately criticized as hostile to the goal of saving for retirement.  Like many others, we were not especially pleased with these proposals, as they seemed to be a changing of the rules while the game is in progress.  However, the president’s 2014 budget contained a number of other provisions that could affect retirement saving, provisions that merit comment, too.  Here are our thoughts on some of them.

§  An automatic-enrollment workplace IRA program would be required of most employers that sponsor no retirement plan, that have been in business for two or more years, and have 10 or more employees.  The proposal includes a start-up credit for employers with 100 or fewer employees.   Traditional or Roth IRAs could be used, with a Roth IRA proposed as the default.  Some may see this as potentially siphoning off true “qualified plan” business, but to the extent that more workers at least begin saving in preparation for retirement, the industry and the nation as a whole benefit.  And, such a program could eventually lead an employer to establish a more traditional retirement plan.

§  Required minimum distributions would be waived for persons with aggregate IRA and employer plan balances that do not exceed $75,000.  This could be beneficial to many retirees who have other assets to help support them in retirement, and who want to preserve tax-deferred amounts until they are actually needed.  

§  Nonspouse beneficiaries would be allowed indirect rollovers between retirement plans and IRAs, and between IRAs.  “Inherited IRA” status would remain a requirement.  In the past, the inability of nonspouse beneficiaries to execute an indirect rollover has been a trap that has caught—and cost—many.  An indirect rollover option would also allow nonspouse beneficiaries to “split” pre-tax and after-tax portions of inherited employer plan accounts when rolling them to inherited IRAs, something they now cannot do because of the present nonspouse beneficiary direct rollover requirement.

§  The maximum small employer retirement plan start-up credit would double from $500 to $1000 per year, and would be available for four years instead of three.  Anything that encourages employers to establish new plans, including tax credit incentives, is worthy of consideration.

§  Electronic capture of employer plan data could be expanded.  A provision of the president’s budget proposal would authorize the IRS to require that nondiscrimination testing data be included on electronically-filed Form 5500 plan returns.  The IRS seems intent on identifying retirement plans that have potential noncompliance issues, and requiring the annual submission of testing data would seem to be a step in that direction.  It would, at minimum, seem to necessitate revising some recordkeeping procedures and Form 5500 generating systems, which would be costs that participants would ultimately bear.  “Is this really necessary?” is the question we ask. 

§  E-filing of information returns could broaden.  The IRS would be given authority to set a threshold below the current 250 for mandatory electronic filing of information returns, including the 1099 and 5498 form series.  A maximum $5,000 penalty could be assessed for failure to e-file when required.  Yes, we live in an increasingly “wired” world, and electronic submission is increasingly more the rule than the exception for trustees and custodians that submit such forms.  But for those with limited filing numbers, the option to submit in paper format rather than deal with programming and software issues may still be valuable.

§  Five-year depletion of IRA and employer plan accounts by nonspouse beneficiaries would be required under the president’s proposed budget.  There would be certain exceptions, including beneficiaries with a disability, a chronic illness, minor status (reverting to five-year payout upon reaching the age of majority), and those whose age is within 10 years of the decedent.  While we recognize that IRAs and employer retirement plans are not primarily for the purpose of inter-generational wealth transfer, it seems that this provision takes away one of the few simple means of providing financially for family members after one’s death.  The concept is intended by lawmakers to raise revenues to finance other tax provisions, and should be recognized as such, rather than as some kind of noble tax policy.

It is highly unlikely that President Obama’s proposed budget will find its way into legislation and become law in its current form.  Given the split in control of the Senate and House, and the meager evidence of across-the-aisle cooperation, expectations for meaningful legislation in the 113th Congress are low.  Nevertheless, all laws begin as proposals, and elements from different sources can become assembled into legislative packages that find their way into law.  Therefore, serious scrutiny should be given to any proposals that could have an impact on retirement saving.