Connecticut may be best known for its colleges, seaside communities, aging industrial cities, and easy access to New York City. Now, the state also wants to be known as the place trying to solve the country’s impending retirement crisis, sparked by millions of Americans who have not saved enough cash to sustain them in their old age.
This spring, state lawmakers set aside roughly $400,000 to look into the possibility of creating a state-run retirement plan for private-sector workers. Connecticut is the first state to commit money to such an endeavor. Currently, about 740,000 state workers cannot sign up for a retirement plan through their company. That’s about one in four workers, according to an analysis done by the New School’s Schwartz Center for Economic Policy Analysis.
For advocates, the goal is to lay the groundwork to start a retirement plan for nongovernment employees that would automatically deduct money from paychecks into retirement accounts, managed for a low fee and with a guaranteed rate of return. It would be one way for the state to help people save — especially small-business owners and low-income residents — apart from simply asking them to rely on Social Security.
Opponents of the plan, including Republican state lawmakers and the financial-services sector, worry that the state’s actions could conflict with federal laws, or ultimately put taxpayers on the hook for securing workers’ retirement.
“There is a huge gap in retirement savings in this country, and it’s important to get to the bottom of why that is,” says Kevin Lembo, the Connecticut state comptroller who supports the study. “States and the federal government have a vested interest in trying to figure out this problem. As a public entity, states and federal government are the backstop if older people do not have the resources to live.”
Connecticut is the just latest state to tiptoe toward the creation of a state-run retirement plan. California passed legislation to create this type of program in 2012, although lawmakers and advocates need to raise cash to first study the issue. California lawmakers hope to have a plan in place by 2016 to serve about 7.4 million of its private-sector employees.
Illinois, Maryland, and Washington state have also explored similar ideas in response to the worry that American workers either cannot afford to retire, or if they do, that they’ll find themselves poorer in their golden years than they were as workers. “There’s never been any disagreement about the worthiness of this objective,” says Dallas Salisbury, president and CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute. “What always ends up getting in the way of implementation is the question of whether this type of program can pay its own way, or if it will need subsidies.”
Connecticut first began to explore the idea of starting a state-run retirement plan in 2009. Yet, not until 2014 were state lawmakers able to agree on a bill to fund the study and to create a task force on retirement security. One of the Connecticut plan’s best proposed features would automatically deduct money from workers’ paychecks and place it into retirement accounts; study after study shows this is the ideal way to nudge workers to save by forcing them to participate, unless they actively chose to opt out.
Several hurdles still remain, though. Chief among them is the fact that the state only agreed to study the issue, not create an actual plan. The state comptroller wonders if the commitment of $400,000 will be enough to pay for a comprehensive study. (California estimated that it would cost at least $1 million). Finally, one outstanding question is how the state can guarantee a rate of return on retirement accounts when the legislation says that a plan cannot put the state in debt or make it liable for private-workers’ retirement.
Regardless of whether Connecticut moves ahead with a state-run retirement plan, however, the need still exists for policymakers to think through retirement. Just 18 percent of Americans feel very confident that they’ll have enough money to live comfortably after they stop working, according to recent research from the Employee Benefit Research Institute. And, any increase in confidence in recent years comes from richer households who’ve overwhelmingly benefited from gains in the stock market and a rise in home prices.
This winter, the Obama administration proposed the creation of a new retirement savings plan for lower-income people. Other than that proposal, the federal government has not acted. “It would be nicer if we saw some action at the federal level,” says Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College. “But, it’s also wonderful to have experiments at the state level and have some laboratories where people can test out what works.”
What We're Following See More »
"House Republicans are circulating the text of an amendment to their ObamaCare replacement bill that they believe could bring many conservatives on board. According to legislative text of the amendment," drafted by Rep. Tom MacArthur (R-NJ), "the measure would allow states to apply for waivers to repeal one of ObamaCare’s core protections for people with pre-existing conditions. Conservatives argue the provision drives up premiums for healthy people, but Democrats—and many more moderate Republicans—warn it would spark a return to the days when insurance companies could charge sick people exorbitantly high premiums."
President Trump on Wednesday "will order a review of national monuments created over the past 20 years with an aim toward rescinding or resizing some of them—part of a broader push to reopen areas to drilling, mining, and other development." Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke told reporters on Tuesday said he'd be reviewing about 30 monuments.
"An emerging government funding deal would see Democrats agree to $15 billion in additional military funding in exchange for the GOP agreeing to fund healthcare subsidies, according to two congressional officials briefed on the talks. Facing a Friday deadline to pass a spending bill and avert a shutdown, Democrats are willing to go halfway to President Trump’s initial request of $30 billion in supplemental military funding."
The Michael Flynn story is not going away for the White House as it tries to refocus its attention. The White House has denied requests from the House Oversight Committee for information and documents regarding payments that the former national security adviser received from Russian state television station RT and Russian firms. House Oversight Chairman Jason Chaffetz and ranking member Elijah Cummings also said that Flynn failed to report these payments on his security clearance application. White House legislative director Marc Short argued that the documents requested are either not in the possession of the White House or contain sensitive information he believes is not applicable to the committee's stated investigation.