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

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

Members of the House Judiciary Committee during the hearing on the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Credit: Olivia Ardito

Tensions were High as Representatives Debated Allegations Against the Southern Poverty Law Center

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The House Judiciary Committee held a hearing last Wednesday examining claims that the Southern Poverty Law Center had funded the very hate groups the center aims to dismantle. Tensions were high as Republicans and Democrats fired back at each other. Noticeably absent was a representative from the center, a non-profit that since 1971 has fought for racial justice and against white supremacy.

The hearing came after the Texas Attorney General Ken Pax­ton announced last Monday that he was investigating the center. The U.S. Justice Department indicted the Southern Poverty Law Center in April for allegedly funneling money to people associated with violent extremist groups. The group has flatly rejected the accusations. While Republicans backed these claims, Democrats viewed the allegations as part of the Trump-backed efforts to hinder “DEI” and other racial justice initiatives.

Keep ReadingShow less
Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

An analysis of gun violence, political extremism, Islamophobia, and community resilience in America after the San Diego Islamic Center shooting.

GemaIbarra / Getty Images

Trump Is Protecting Insurrectionists But Not Your Kids

Last Monday, two teenage gunmen opened fire outside the Islamic Center of San Diego, murdering three Muslim men. Unfortunately, this is the type of horror Americans have been conditioned to expect. After years of political stagnation on gun safety and ongoing hateful acts of violence, our president has signaled once again to children, to the Muslim community, and to everyone else: he does not care if you get shot.

Gun violence has been on the rise in the United States for too long. Perhaps the most harrowing consequence is that gun violence is now the leading cause of death among children. Whether from school shootings, homicides, suicides, or accidents, the gun-death rate for children is nearly five in every 100,000. In fact, the number of domestic deaths due to gun violence is about as many as U.S. military deaths in every war since World War I combined. More children have been lost to gun violence since 2020 than troops lost since 9/11. Yet even with such a striking death toll—and one affecting children no less—happening on our own soil, Vice President J.D. Vance calls it a “fact of life.

Keep ReadingShow less
The dome of the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C., stands tall against a blue sky with the American flag waving proudly

Congress faces growing pressure to pass redistricting reform as lawmakers debate banning gerrymandering, independent commissions, and mid-decade map changes amid renewed national controversy over fair elections.

Getty Images, aire images

Congress's Missed Opportunities on Redistricting Reform

On April 29, Issue One posted an image on Facebook and Instagram: CONGRESS CAN FIX THIS WITH THREE SIMPLE STEPS:

  1. Establish Clear National Criteria for Fair Maps
  2. Require Independent Redistricting Commissions in Every State
  3. Ban Mid-Decade Redistricting.

Issue One added below: “… but it needs 60 Senate votes to do it.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional
beige concrete building under blue sky during daytime

Open Letter to Justice Roberts: Partisan Gerrymandering Is Unconstitutional

The Supreme Court, in holding that partisan gerrymandering is permissible—unless it "goes too far"—stated that the argument made against this practice based on the Court's "one person, one vote" doctrine didn't work because the cases that developed that doctrine were about ensuring that each vote had an equal weight. The Court reasoned that after redistricting, each vote still has equal weight.

I would respectfully disagree. After admittedly partisan redistricting, each vote does not have an equal weight. The purpose of partisan gerrymandering is typically to create a "safe" seat—to group citizens so that the dominant political party has a clear majority of the voters. It's the transformation of a contested seat or even a seat safe for the other party into a safe seat for the party doing the redistricting.

Keep ReadingShow less