Like Causes?

Install the App
TRY NOW

house Bill H. Joint Res. 66

Should a Rule Letting States Enroll Workers in State-Managed IRAs be Overturned?

Argument in favor

The Obama administration’s rule created unintended consequences, such as discouraging small businesses from offering 401(k)s, fewer protections, and giving savers less control over their money. It needs to be repealed.

Loraki's Opinion
···
05/03/2017
I VOTE YEA! The Obama Administration will be remembered for RAMPANT FEDERAL OVERREACH. (Also rampant corruption, socialist policies, Muslim appeasement and disgraceful foreign policy, turning loose terrorists, the war on cops, fossil fuels, free speech, and guns, dividing Americans and pitting them against each other, indoctrinating our children and our military, eroding our rights and our national security and sovereignty, and let's not forget Obama's heinous bathroom policy and Obamacare)
Like (27)
Follow
Share
···
05/03/2017
I'm on board with the federal government preventing states from enrolling people in something involuntarily. States should not be able to force people to have money taken from them and put into state-managed savings. BY THE EXACT SAME LOGIC, THOUGH, the federal government should also not be able to force people to participate in social security. When will the government decide they've taken enough? This isn't about whether or not saving is good - it objectively is very good to do - but rather is about whether or not government can mandate THAT you save and HOW MUCH you save, and then put itself in charge of those savings. Whether we're talking about state IRAs or social security, the answer is clearly no, that is not a justifiable role for the government to play. That is an infringement against the individual sovereignty over life, liberty, and property, rather than the defense of it. It's tyranny. It's a tyranny nominally exercised in the best interest of people, to be sure, but as CS Lewis pointed out, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
Like (16)
Follow
Share
Mart's Opinion
···
05/03/2017
Force is not a free society's way to achieve anything. If you must force them, they don't want it!
Like (8)
Follow
Share

Argument opposed

The Obama administration’s rule wisely promotes saving for retirement by auto-enrolling workers in a savings plan if their employers don’t have a retirement savings program. Besides, workers can opt out of them.

Sam's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
I cannot even find a summary of this bill on congress's website, and yet they are going to vote on it? My answer must be no until more information is provided
Like (95)
Follow
Share
David's Opinion
···
02/13/2017
Here's a summary of the situation by the AARP: http://blog.aarp.org/2017/02/13/aarp-is-fighting-to-protect-state-flexibility-on-retirement-plans/. I cannot for the life of me understand why congress would disapprove the regulation. Rather than restrict, it opens things up so states can help their citizens save for retirement without worrying that their efforts will be preempted by ERISA.
Like (63)
Follow
Share
Carole's Opinion
···
05/04/2017
Why is this congress and this administration consistently finding itself on the other side of organizations like AARP and the AMA??? If they want to make it easier for businesses to band together to provide retirement options, then why don't they get busy on that, rather than removing "regulations" that encourage consumers to save for their own retirement? Especially a "regulation" that consumers can easily opt out of?? This is a do nothing congress, except when it comes to dismantling our protections. Very sad.
Like (33)
Follow
Share
    I VOTE YEA! The Obama Administration will be remembered for RAMPANT FEDERAL OVERREACH. (Also rampant corruption, socialist policies, Muslim appeasement and disgraceful foreign policy, turning loose terrorists, the war on cops, fossil fuels, free speech, and guns, dividing Americans and pitting them against each other, indoctrinating our children and our military, eroding our rights and our national security and sovereignty, and let's not forget Obama's heinous bathroom policy and Obamacare)
    Like (27)
    Follow
    Share
    I cannot even find a summary of this bill on congress's website, and yet they are going to vote on it? My answer must be no until more information is provided
    Like (95)
    Follow
    Share
    Here's a summary of the situation by the AARP: http://blog.aarp.org/2017/02/13/aarp-is-fighting-to-protect-state-flexibility-on-retirement-plans/. I cannot for the life of me understand why congress would disapprove the regulation. Rather than restrict, it opens things up so states can help their citizens save for retirement without worrying that their efforts will be preempted by ERISA.
    Like (63)
    Follow
    Share
    Why is this congress and this administration consistently finding itself on the other side of organizations like AARP and the AMA??? If they want to make it easier for businesses to band together to provide retirement options, then why don't they get busy on that, rather than removing "regulations" that encourage consumers to save for their own retirement? Especially a "regulation" that consumers can easily opt out of?? This is a do nothing congress, except when it comes to dismantling our protections. Very sad.
    Like (33)
    Follow
    Share
    Please just don't just kill this opportunity to create retirement savings plans. If this is really about helping workers, please hold hearings, study it and permit public testimony.
    Like (25)
    Follow
    Share
    "By law, state plans are transparent about their fees and operations. In contrast, 401(k) plans and other retirement options are infamous for hidden fees, excessive costs and needless complexity. The industry has taken a lot of flak from policy makers and investor advocates for those high costs, and comparisons with state-based plans will only intensify the unwanted scrutiny." https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/14/opinion/whod-want-to-limit-retirement-plans-house-republicans.html
    Like (20)
    Follow
    Share
    I'm on board with the federal government preventing states from enrolling people in something involuntarily. States should not be able to force people to have money taken from them and put into state-managed savings. BY THE EXACT SAME LOGIC, THOUGH, the federal government should also not be able to force people to participate in social security. When will the government decide they've taken enough? This isn't about whether or not saving is good - it objectively is very good to do - but rather is about whether or not government can mandate THAT you save and HOW MUCH you save, and then put itself in charge of those savings. Whether we're talking about state IRAs or social security, the answer is clearly no, that is not a justifiable role for the government to play. That is an infringement against the individual sovereignty over life, liberty, and property, rather than the defense of it. It's tyranny. It's a tyranny nominally exercised in the best interest of people, to be sure, but as CS Lewis pointed out, "Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
    Like (16)
    Follow
    Share
    Need more info
    Like (13)
    Follow
    Share
    Government employees HAVE retirement plans. Many non-governmental, private employees do not. States are trying to offset the problem of so many Americans reaching 65 with only limited funding from Social Security. Yes, it would be nice if everyone would put 15-20% of their earnings away while working at minimum, <40hr a week jobs but....Also since the recession, many people who only recently got a new job or were rehired, are missing several years of paying into SS. I thought the GOP was all about States rights?
    Like (12)
    Follow
    Share
    States are trying to set up payroll deduction retirement savings systems for people, not state employees, whose employers do not provide them with 401(k)s. This is the right thing to do for lower and middle class Americans, and the Labor Dept promulgated rules outlining how states can go about this (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-08-30/pdf/2016-20639.pdf). Congress should allow states to move on this and experiment with the best systems to make retirement savings easy and affordable for the majority of Americans. Repealing this regulation (https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-joint-resolution/66/text) appears to simply be a gift to financial firms, who stand to make more money in fees if Americans have to use IRAs rather than the state systems in question.
    Like (9)
    Follow
    Share
    Why make it HARDER for someone to save!???!!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Force is not a free society's way to achieve anything. If you must force them, they don't want it!
    Like (8)
    Follow
    Share
    Why non government employees? We should all be equal and treated the same. No special interest groups. I am sick of government employees getting the best benefits and pay and expect taxpayers to foot the bill.
    Like (7)
    Follow
    Share
    My state, Illinois, would be impacted by this bill. Why republicans who espouse states rights for healthcare deny self employed people from participating in state organized 401k plans?
    Like (6)
    Follow
    Share
    California Secure Choice, hailed as the greatest achievement in retirement security since the passage of Social Security in 1935, now faces great legal and economic uncertainty. The House vote could deprive 6.8 million California private-sector workers the opportunity to save their own money for retirement through a workplace payroll contribution. Secure Choice promotes personal responsibility to save for retirement at no cost to taxpayers and minimal cost to employees. Please vote ‘No’ on House Joint Resolution 66.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    All people need access to retirement plans. It's unfair that unskilled workers and people who work for small businesses aren't provided with the opportunity to plan for retirement. Not everyone can work at Walmart as a door greeter until they fall over dead. Congress has a rather robust plan, and I think all Americans should have access to some kind of retirement.
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    Link to good explainer with portions pasted below: http://www.thinkadvisor.com/2017/02/09/congressmen-aim-to-block-obama-era-retirement-rule Walberg’s H.J. Res 66 would roll back the Savings Arrangements Established by States for Non-Governmental Employees rule submitted in August, while Rooney’s H.J. Res 67 would block a similar rule submitted in December that extends to “political subdivisions” like cities and counties that administer savings programs for private-sector workers. .... Some states, including California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon, have adopted programs for certain employers that don’t offer workplace savings plans to automatically deduct a percentage of a worker’s paycheck and save them in a state-administered IRA. Employers are not required to make a contribution of their own and employees must opt out, rather than opt in. ..... “Because the new safe harbor requires that the employer's involvement in the program be required and circumscribed by state law, the 1975 safe harbor's condition that employee participation be ‘completely voluntary’ has been modified to permit state-required automatic employee enrollment procedures,” according to the August proposal. Rooney expressed concern that this could force workers “into government-run plans with fewer protections and less control over their hard-earned savings. Employers will face a confusing patchwork of rules, and many small businesses may forgo offering retirement plans altogether,” he said in a statement. Walberg added that instead of increasing regulations to promote retirement savings, policymakers should work to “reduce costly red tape and make it easier for small businesses to band together to offer retirement plans for their employees.”
    Like (5)
    Follow
    Share
    If people can save for retirement it should be encouraged. It will be good for the country if more people have the means to care for themselves in old age.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Wow. I just look how my senators and representative voted and just know I'm against whatever they voted for. I don't even have to read. I can if I choose, but those idiots have nothing in common with me. They make no effort to even pretend. Ted Cruz, I'd say we were sending you home, but I can't wish that on Canada. You're not going back to DV, Teddy. Go, Beto O'Rourke! Represent the sane people of Texas!
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    Republicans say that we should save for ourselves. Republicans say that Obama has discouraged small companies from offering 401k matches and etc. Now republicans say that this optiin should be stripped away from us to savw on our own to cut through the Obama regulations... it seems to be a party before people repeal. SHAME on you for voting yay.
    Like (4)
    Follow
    Share
    MORE