Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Congress shows signs of bipartisanship with retirement benefits bill

Opinion

401k statement
DNY59/Getty Images

Lopez is president of the Hispanic Leadership Fund, a nonpartisan public policy advocacy organization that advances liberty, opportunity and prosperity for all.

With financial insecurity looming in the consciousness of millions of Americans, it was encouraging to see the U.S. House of Representatives recently passed legislation that strengthens and expands opportunities for those who participate in private retirement plans through their employer. Tens of millions of Americans stand to benefit from potential changes in the law.

The Securing a Strong Retirement Act, often referred to as SECURE 2.0, passed the chamber with overwhelming bipartisan support (by a vote of 414-5) — which is in and of itself eyebrow-raising these days.


The bill includes a series of critical changes that will help small businesses and their employees, lower- and middle-income families, and anyone attempting to save and improve their economic outlook.

One of the most important provisions of SECURE 2.0 is enhancement of the Saver’s Credit, a tax credit available to low- and moderate-income workers who make contributions out of their salary to their employer-sponsored 401(k), 403(b), SIMPLE, SEP or governmental 457 plan, or who contribute to traditional or Roth IRAs.

Under current law, the credit percentage — which is multiplied by the contribution (up to the maximum contribution of $2,000) — is 50 percent, 20 percent, 10 percent or zero, based on the taxpayer’s modified adjusted gross income. SECURE 2.0 eliminates the MAGI tiers and makes the credit percentage 50 percent for all who don’t surpass the upper-income threshold. For example, if a married couple has $48,000 of income, and one of them makes a $2,000 contribution to a plan or IRA, the current credit of 10 percent equals a $200 tax credit. Under SECURE 2.0, that same couple would receive a 50 percent credit — $1,000.

SECURE 2.0 also incentivizes small businesses to offer retirement plans, an employee benefit that is often difficult for small businesses to establish.The three-year small-business start-up credit is currently 50 percent of administrative costs, up to an annual cap that can be as much as $5,000. If a company with up to 100 employees starts a retirement plan and spends $3,000 per year administering it, the employer currently receives a $1,500 per year credit for three years. Under SECURE 2.0, that 50 percent credit would increase to 100 percent for employers with up to 50 employees, going from $1,500 to $3,000 in this example.

To illustrate the power of the additional credit based on contributions, assume that a 40-employee company makes $500 contributions for each of its employees. The contribution-based credit for that company over five years would total $70,000 — $20,000 in each of the first two years, $15,000 in the third year, $10,000 in the fourth and $5,000 in the fifth. This is a powerful incentive that helps both the small business itself and of course its employees.

SECURE 2.0 allows student loan payments to be treated as elective deferrals for purposes of matching contributions. Under the bill, an employer would be permitted to make matching student loan contributions under 401(k) and 403(b) plans. This addresses a problem facing millions of employees who are so buried in student debt that they cannot afford to make retirement contributions and thus lose out on matching contributions offered by their employer. For example, if an employer provides a 50 percent match and an employee makes student loan payments of $1,000, the employer would make a $500 contribution to the plan on behalf of that employee.

There are a whole host of other provisions. For example, the bill would help part-time employees become eligible to participate in their employer’s retirement plan, addressing a key concern under today’s rules. Also, the bill would help our nation’s military spouses become covered by retirement plans despite having to move so much to support their spouses. And the bill establishes a lost-and-found registry to help individuals find retirement benefits that they have earned but lost track of.

With bipartisan cooperation toward solving problems seeming impossible to find, the SECURE 2.0 bill represents important progress that benefits working families across the country. The Senate has its own version making its way through the legislative process. Those following these bills closely expect that these bills will be combined and probably included in a broader legislative package.

Regardless of how it comes to be, let’s hope that lawmakers continue to work together on such a critical issue as financial empowerment for everyday Americans.


Read More

An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed upon entering the Jacob K. Javits Federal Building on June 6, 2023 in New York City. New York City has provided sanctuary to over 46,000 asylum seekers since 2013, when the city passed a law prohibiting city agencies from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement agencies unless there is a warrant for the person's arrest.(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)
An ICE agent monitors hundreds of asylum seekers being processed.
(Photo by David Dee Delgado/Getty Images)

The Power of the Purse and Executive Discretion: ICE Expansion Under the Trump Administration

This nonpartisan policy brief, written by an ACE fellow, is republished by The Fulcrum as part of our partnership with the Alliance for Civic Engagement and our NextGen initiative — elevating student voices, strengthening civic education, and helping readers better understand democracy and public policy.

Key Takeaways

  • Core Constitutional Debate: Expanded ICE enforcement under the Trump Administration raises a core constitutional question: Does Article II executive power override Article I’s congressional power of the purse?
  • Executive Justification: The primary constitutional justification for expanded ICE enforcement is The Unitary Executive Theory.
  • Separation of Powers: Critics argue that the Unitary Executive Theory undermines Congress’s power of the purse.
  • Moral Conflict: Expanded ICE enforcement has sparked a moral debate, as concerns over due process and civil liberties clash with claims of increased public safety and national security.

Where is ICE Funding Coming From?

Since the beginning of the current Trump Administration, immigration enforcement has undergone transformative change and become one of the most contested issues in the federal government. On his first day in office, President Trump issued Executive Order 14159, which directs executive agencies to implement stricter immigration enforcement practices. In order to implement these practices, Congress passed and President Trump signed into law the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBBA), a budget reconciliation package that paired state and local tax cuts with immigration funding. This allocated $170.7 billion in immigration-related funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to spend by 2029.

Keep ReadingShow less
Towards a Reformed Capitalism
oval brown wooden conference table and chairs inside conference room

Towards a Reformed Capitalism

Despite all the laws and regulations that apply to corporations, which for the most part are designed to make corporations more responsive to the greater good, corporations have wreaked great harm on our environment, their workers, their customers, and the general public. Despite all the rules, capitalism can still pretty much do what it wants.

The problem is not that the laws and regulations are not enforced, although that is partly true. The problem is more that the laws and regulations are weak because of the strong influence corporations have on both Congress (this is true of Democrats as well as Republicans) and those responsible for regulating.

Keep ReadingShow less
Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

The Bring Our Families Home campaign brought together loved ones of Americans wrongly detained overseas to display portraits in the Senate Russell Rotunda on Wednesday, May 6.

(Jacques Abou-Rizk, MNS)

Families of Americans Overseas Wrongfully Detained Bring Advocacy to Capitol Hill

WASHINGTON – American journalist Reza Valizadeh visited his elderly Iranian parents in March 2024 for the first time in 15 years. Valizadeh’s stories for Voice of America and other U.S. government-funded outlets often criticized the Iranian regime. So before traveling, he sought and received confirmation that he would be safe from a high-ranking commander in the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, a branch of Iran’s armed forces. However, in September that same year, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps arrested Valizadeh, and Tehran’s Revolutionary Court sentenced him to ten years in prison for “collaboration with a hostile government.”

In the Rotunda of the Senate Russell Building last week, the Bring Our Families Home campaign set up portraits of Valizadeh and 12 other Americans currently wrongfully detained overseas. The group, family members of illegitimately detained Americans, appealed to Congress to push for their safe return. Each foam poster board included the name, home state, and country of detainment. The display also included portraits of the 33 people released after advocacy by the James W. Foley Foundation.

Keep ReadingShow less
DHS Funding During the Shutdown
Getty Images, Charles-McClintock Wilson

DHS Funding During the Shutdown

When Congress failed to approve funding for the Department of Homeland Security for the remainder of this fiscal year in February, almost all of its employees began to work without pay. That situation changed, however, on April 3, when President Donald Trump issued a memorandum ordering the DHS secretary and director of the Office of Management and Budget to “use funds that have a reasonable and logical nexus to the functions of DHS” to pay its employees and issue back pay.

Trump shifted money to avoid the political embarrassment that would be caused by the collapse of airport security screening through the actions of disgruntled agents and the disruption to air travel that would ensue. But it’s legally dubious.

Keep ReadingShow less