Campaign Premises

If you have turned on a TV, walked by a radio, driven down a residential street, gotten an unsolicited text or answered a phone (or more likely let it go unanswered) in the past month, you will, of course, be aware that our nation will officially go to the polls today.

I say “officially,” but of course, our nation has been “going” to the polls—or at least casting votes—for several weeks now. And while some states (and voters) have done so in elections past, a combination of factors means that the process of voting, like so much of our lives the past couple of years, is going to be “unprecedented,” both in terms of the breadth and volume of votes cast prior to election “day”—and perhaps on that day itself.

And yes, it’s been a particularly nasty—one feels compelled to say “unprecedented”—election cycle.

Now, we all carry on as though the nation has never, ever seen anything like this—but perhaps it would be more accurate to say that it hasn’t …in our lifetimes. Students of history will, of course, remember that the nation literally split apart in the 1860s, but even before that there were the “Alien and Sedition Acts” in the late 1700s, the so-called Whisky Rebellion in 1791-94, the Sedition Act of 1918, the Alien Enemies Act in 1942—and let’s not forget from when the Tea Party of 2009 drew its inspiration. As for the outsized impact and biases of the media, hard as it may be to believe the founding fathers (not to mention elected officials throughout the 1800s) would very likely have characterized today’s voices as “restrained” (of course, they weren’t subjected to it 24/7).

Indeed, while much is made of what appears to be an extraordinary level of polarization in perspectives, the pernicious influences of social media, and the pervasive editorializing of the “news,” it remains my sense that at the level of the individual our nation is not so cleanly demarcated into “blue” and “red” as pundits would have us believe. Moreover, while we surely have our individual differences, I suspect at most levels the voting public is not as polarized in their opinions on key issues as are the individuals seeking their vote, or the process[i] that produces those individuals. 

None of that should be read as an acceptance of, or acquiescence with, the current state of affairs. Like most of you (I suspect) I find the tone and tenor of most in the public square today (both “sides”) to be both vitriolic and toxic. We have real problems to solve, crisis of which to steer clear—and some from which we need extrication in the here and now.

The issues that confront our industry—and the nation’s retirement—important though they surely are, are unlikely to be the issues that motivate your choices on the ballot this year. That said, it’s worth remembering that elections matter there as well—that the “sweep” of control often creates the biggest issues for retirement policy, be it the tumult of the Tax Reform Act of 1986, the flirtation with Rothification, the ardor for financial transaction taxes (that make no allowance for retirement savings), and “equalization” of tax treatment that might well discourage plan formation. And just how powerful bipartisanship (still) can be in terms of producing thoughtful, meaningful legislation like the SECURE Act—not to mention the SECURE 2.0 (still) waiting in the legislative wings.  

As I write these words, it’s hard to imagine that we’ll know how it will all turn out by Election Day’s close. The good news, whether it be a result, or in spite of, the current level of vitriol, the American public’s interest in expressing its opinion by actually taking the time to go to the polls—or in pursuing an absentee ballot—appears to be surging. Elections do have consequences, after all—and, if the last several elections have taught us nothing else, we now know that votes—even a single vote—can matter.

Here’s hoping that—whatever your position on the issues—you take the time to vote this election. It is not only a right, after all, it is a privilege—and a responsibility.

Here’s also hoping that those who find themselves in office as a result conduct themselves accordingly.

  - Nevin E. Adams, JD

---

[i] Which can probably not be said at this point for the perspectives of those who actually made it to the ballot. But then, if they want to stay there, they can’t long ignore the voice/will of the people.

“After” Thoughts

The morning after last week’s mid-term elections, a plan sponsor friend of mine called me up and asked me what I thought it all meant.

Still bleary-eyed from sitting up watching the returns pile in the night before, I immediately launched into what I felt was an insightful assessment of the mood of the electorate, the trends of various interest groups that had, at least according to exit polling, shifted allegiances since 2008, the influence of the Tea Party, and the historical context of the shifts.

After patiently listening to me ramble for several minutes, he finally interjected—“I mean, what does this mean for retirement plans.”

Well, IMHO, you can’t completely separate the two. By any measure, the results were historic; Democrats lost their so-called 60-vote “super majority” in the Senate and, more significantly, control of the House, and in numbers that outpaced 1994’s turnaround (though that election also gave Republicans control of the Senate). That will certainly slow, if not stop, the pace of legislative change coming out of Washington, and—based on the employers I have spoken with—that will almost certainly be a welcome respite.


Many are inclined to harken back to the 1994 elections as a harbinger, recalling that after that turnabout, then-President Clinton and the Republican Congress managed to come together on several key initiatives, even as the nation entered a period of relative peace and prosperity. However, aside from the fact that, IMHO, those perspectives ignore many differences in approach between the two presidencies, they also gloss over the fairly nasty political period that followed the 1994 elections. It was, after all, a period that led to a number of high-profile conflicts, duelling press conferences, and that infamous (and in my estimation, overhyped) government “shut-down.” In sum, things finally settled down (well, except perhaps for “tiffs” like a presidential impeachment), but there was a lot of venom and acrimony in evidence for an extended period after the election. I think it would be naïve to expect any less/better from the current players (though I’m willing to be wrong).

The bottom line is, the House can pass legislation, but the Senate’s not likely to go along with it—nor would ditto any legislation that might manage to emerge from the Senate seem to have much chance of getting past the House. And that’s without even having to contemplate the power of a Presidential veto (particularly since there are no “veto proof” majorities in sight).

It’s not that the mid-term elections won’t have any impact on retirement plans. I fully expect the debate about Social Security reform to re-emerge, and changes there, though not likely in the next two years, will of necessity at some point have a ripple effect through all our retirement planning assumptions. I wouldn’t expect to see much happen with that automatic IRA legislation, certainly not with its employer mandates intact.

That said, our industry doesn’t need legislation to keep things stirred up. We’ll be busy worrying about disclosing fees, helping plan sponsors (and participants) understand those disclosures, and pondering just exactly what a new definition of fiduciary might mean, while regulatory deliberations about 12(b)1 and target-date funds will also be on the radar screen, and perhaps even retirement income.

Indeed, the regulatory change already in motion seems more than adequate to keep plan sponsors, advisers, attorneys—and journalists—plenty busy trying to sort it all out. In sum, I anticipate a lot of noise, a fair amount of activity, and not much forward motion in Washington for the next couple of years—though I am not sure that is a bad thing.

As always, we’ll worry a lot about matters in Washington; but IMHO, what happens outside of Washington is, more often than not, what matters.

—Nevin E. Adams, JD