‘Retirement provocateur’ Kathleen Kennedy Townsend played an instrumental role in the debate over retirement issues, resulting in significant policy ideas. A founder of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives, the 40-year political veteran and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor joins American Retirement Association CEO Brian Graff for a provocative discussion about making it easy to save, state auto IRAs, national retirement plan proposals, and why people just don’t want to talk about retirement.
‘Retirement provocateur’ Kathleen Kennedy Townsend played an instrumental role in the debate over retirement issues, resulting in significant policy ideas. A founder of the Georgetown University Center for Retirement Initiatives, the 40-year political veteran and former Maryland Lieutenant Governor joins American Retirement Association CEO Brian Graff for a provocative discussion about making it easy to save, state auto IRAs, national retirement plan proposals, and why people just don’t want to talk about retirement.
Most times when people talk about retirement, they're being told you have not saved enough. You should have been saving for the last 12 years. You have not done your duty, which means everybody feels guilty and shame and they don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 2:DC Pension Geeks brings you exclusive conversations with top retirement policymakers and regulators in and around Washington DC, hosted by Brian Graff, an attorney, accountant, former Capitol Hill staffer and CEO of the American Retirement Association. If you're looking for an insider's view of all the twists and turns that Washington takes on the road to ensuring a secure retirement for millions of Americans, you're in the right place. Welcome to DC Pension Geeks.
Speaker 3:Hello everybody, welcome back to another episode of DC Pension Geeks. We are really fortunate and honored today to have with me a true retirement provocateur, kathleen Kennedy Townsend, who has played many roles in the retirement policy debate and has been instrumental in formulating a lot of significant retirement policy ideas. Kathleen, maybe you know I don't think people in the real world, aka outside the wonderful Beltway here, really know you know about your role in retirement policy, so maybe a little bit of background. How did you end up being interested in this topic? And you know how you got involved and some of your you know early successes.
Speaker 1:Oh, you're so nice to ask, brian. Basically, I got involved. I was working for an investment management firm and I was in California and I was at a conference. I listened to Ranny Weingarten speak and she talked about how half Americans didn't have really enough save for retirement, that didn't have a savings, and that half of all businesses don't have a retire. And the reason they do that they don't have enough savings is because about half of all American businesses don't offer a retirement plan and we're not. I don't blame the businesses, because it's difficult to set up a plan and it's expensive to set up a plan and they don't have. If you're going to be a hairdresser, what you know is hair, but you don't really know how to set up a retirement plan.
Speaker 1:So I thought, wow, I've been in politics for 40 years. I was in politics for 40 years I've been the lieutenant governor, I'd run for Congress and I didn't know anything about the challenges of retirement. I knew about social security, but I didn't know about the savings issue and I thought something should be done. I had heard that California was trying to pass a piece of legislation, but I had seen that when I was in state government very few people knew about finances and when I worked in the financial sector I learned that very few people in the financial sector knew about government and I thought, wow, I've worked in both of those areas. I think that I should do something and I started a center at Georgetown University to help states pass laws that would require businesses that don't offer a retirement plan to put 5% of their employees' salary into a state-run IRA, unless the employee objects. And I was then asked to do by Martin O'Malley, who was then governor of Maryland, to chair a task force in Maryland to see if we could pass such a law in Maryland, and we did, and what we've seen is now about 19 states. When we started there were no states. Now there are about 19 states who have passed some sort of form of that kind of legislation and in some states it's been extremely successful. As you know, in Oregon, for instance, 70% of the people don't do sign up, but they put that 5% in. In fact it's gone up now to 6% and the average median salary of people do that it's about $39,000 a year. So this is not a group of very wealthy Americans, but there's a group of Americans who are saying I want to save, make it easy for me to save, and when you make it easy to save, people save. And that, I think, is the bottom line. What we have to do is make it easy to do things.
Speaker 1:I grew up and I went to a school on Barghartha Boulevard called Our Lady of Victory. It's a Catholic school. It was taught by nuns many, many years ago, in the 1950s, which is when I went to elementary school and they taught us what we should do is to try to make things easy to be good. Avoid the temptations to sin and I think that holds true with so many things Just make things easy to be good. So make it easy to save and people will save, and that has really been my way of thinking, I think. A few years ago, as you know, brian, this whole idea of nudging came out, which is just to say people want to do the right thing, but they're busy, they have children to take care of, they have parents to take care of, they have jobs to get to, they have buses to catch and therefore it's hard to do everything to make their life, as they grow old, easy. But if you just make it easy to save, they will.
Speaker 3:The data simplicity. The point you're making is so incredibly important. The data around the efficacy of workplace savings programs and automatic enrollment through payroll deduction versus getting people to do it on their own is so powerful. I mean people for me cite the statistic moderate income workers are 15 times more likely to save when they're covered by a workplace plan with automatic enrollment than on their own. I mean, there's no doubt about it.
Speaker 3:And the state programs that have been in effect for the early ones you mentioned Oregon, california, obviously Colorado have shown some real early success and huge meaningful increases in coverage. Some of the states it doesn't seem to be they've been acting something right, kathleen, but it doesn't seem to be getting quite the movement that we've seen in some of the other states. I almost feel like because the state's not doing enough to communicate to businesses that there's a requirement of some kind and what the value proposition is. And do you think? And, by the way, the center that you help form is called the Georgetown Center for Retirement Research. People should know what the name is. It's done tremendous work, particularly in this area.
Speaker 1:I just want to say I formed it with Ken Melman, who was head of the Republican Party.
Speaker 3:So it was a bipartisan. I want to, and people may not know the background, but Kathleen was also Lieutenant Governor of Maryland at one point, so obviously, obviously through her family, very I'm a Democrat really very steeped in politics.
Speaker 3:And the point is that retirement is one of those issues that can bring both both Republicans and has historically so but but let me ask you this question, given your role in the Georgetown Center, I do don't think we're spending enough time focusing on the helping the states who do the right thing have a program, messaging and communicating and and and effectuating the program, and maybe we need to spend some time on the agendas that we have with the state treasures on that point, and what's your response to that?
Speaker 1:I think I think you raise an excellent point, because the Georgetown Center is often seen as a policy and a lot of policy is important, but, as you know, a lot of it is is trying to figure out how to how to do PR. Yeah, implementation. And PR just plays an enormous role and it did in Oregon and California and they spent money on getting the message out. If you don't get the message out, all all the good policy in the world goes nowhere and sometimes doing it.
Speaker 3:They don't show up and they don't know about it.
Speaker 1:No, they don't. Thank you very much. That's the truth, and so what you really need to do is to have a really good PR campaign, because we want we want these.
Speaker 3:You know the programs going in New York and New Jersey. Yes, marilyn, virginia and the real challenges with these programs.
Speaker 1:I mean having I, after we passed it in Maryland, I sat on the board for a number of years before I joined the Department of Labor, and it's it's hard to do PR for these programs in a sense because they all the small businesses that this affects, they're not all in the same place and so you don't. It's expensive having run for office to do good PR, and yet are they in Western Maryland, are they in Baltimore City, and what kind of messages reach? Which kind of group Maybe then?
Speaker 3:is. I mean, I granted it's not easy, but I do think that's what you have to do. Some attention needs to be paid to it.
Speaker 1:You're exactly right. So you have to work with the chambers of commerce, and some of them are very supportive in some states. You have to work with the Hispanic groups, which is what they did very, very well in California, and you work with. For some reason, I have a special affection for hairdressers Okay.
Speaker 3:Well, they have a chamber to, I'm sure.
Speaker 1:Yes, and and also because they talked to lots of people. So, if so, you've talked to them and they talked to all their customers. Everybody goes to a hairdresser, anyway, I think, I think the cheer point about getting the message out is absolutely critical and it will make just make them much more successful. And, and this and the studies that have been done, as you know, by the Pew trust, has found that the small, the small businesses, like it because their customers and in fact it gives them a way to compete with large businesses, because they can see we are giving you a benefit, otherwise they couldn't give them a return.
Speaker 3:We're also finding, you know there was a lot of you know and everyone if you don't know a array was, you know, very early on, a supporter of this idea. Even in California, in the very early stages of this kind of where Kathleen and I first ran to each other, and most of the objections came from the financial services industry because they didn't want the states competing with them. Our view was, you know, bigger pie, that everyone wins. And you know it turns out we were right. The data is absolutely clear that you know, not only seeing increases in coverage, we're also seeing huge increases in private plan formation to the benefit of the financial services industry.
Speaker 1:Can I just tell you the obvious? In Maryland I say you guys, this is going to help you. I know, Kathleen, but my clients don't know it, so I have to do what my clients want.
Speaker 3:You were right, we're wrong, but we got to make sure that you know, businesses know about it, and also so-.
Speaker 1:And financial businesses have been helped, Both because the state has given them more money and also because small business some small businesses say oh, I have a choice of going with the state, IRA or I can choose my, I can choose a 401k plan and I'd rather with my own 401k plan, which has increased their number of businesses. So it's been great on both sides.
Speaker 3:And we're actually working with Pew on additional states. Right now we're working with them in Massachusetts, working with them in Washington state Michigan is another state so hoping to, you know, expand the pie even further, which is exciting. So, question, you know, we see data that shows these state programs really work. Coverage is happening, assets are growing for lower income individuals, they're participating, opt-out rates are very reasonable. So, while of a sudden are we getting these proposals to blow the whole system up and, you know, create a federally run 401k plan, like the economic innovation group wants to do, what, what I mean? Why? Why is this? This tendency among academics to throw everything out all the time?
Speaker 1:Well, remember, brian, we did want a national program, you and I you and I did.
Speaker 3:Well, and to that point there is legislation by, you know, congressman Richie Neal, who's the senior Democrat in the Ways and Means Committee, could very well be the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee after the election. And this is his, you know, top. One of his top three proposals is a national requirement to have a plan if you have, let's say, 10 employees. But even his proposal doesn't throw the whole private sector system out, but just basically piggybacks on the state programs as well as the private sector.
Speaker 1:Well, I think so. I think I mean my, let's say that there are different programs. First of all, I think it would be good to have a national program, in the sense that most businesses don't want to have different rules all the time.
Speaker 3:Yeah, yeah sure.
Speaker 1:And if you ask me what, what I would hope would happen with the state programs, I would hope that they would join together like they do with the like 529s like the 529s or the ABLE program that the states could join together. You'd have 13 states join one thing so that you would have more scale, sure. So I think that would be a good idea and I think Colorado is being trying to do that, leading the charge on that.
Speaker 1:It's leading the charge on that and I was in Delaware last fall and they were also interested in finding a partner, so I think that's a very good sign. I think the EIG is a different deal and it is really for more low, from my understanding, is really for low income. So remember I said that 70% stay in but 30% opt out and those that 30% are, I think, the most low income group.
Speaker 3:Well, they're just, you know, their proposal specifically, just to give everyone some background here.
Speaker 1:Yeah, why don't you describe?
Speaker 3:it. They would create a federally run retirement program that would be available to both employers and concent meal, thate, even for those who don't currently have a plan or want to swap out their plans, and gig workers, which has some value, and we can talk about that separately. Under their proposal, the federal government would provide a 5% of pay contribution to participating employees that, if they're single, make up to $75,000 a year, which is a pretty large percentage of the population, and married, up to $150,000 a year, which is a pretty large percentage of the population. Our concern and, by the way, this matching subsidy only applies if you participate in the EIG federally run program Our concern is small business hairdresser, if the government's going to pay for a match, why should I pay for it?
Speaker 3:By the way, it would completely undermine the state programs. Why would I participate in the state program if the federal government's going to provide a match that the state's not giving any match at all? There is something called the Sabres match, which is going into law in 2027. You were very involved in the Sabres match. It's now finally refundable both, something you and I worked on for many years. What we don't understand is why don't they just piggybacking on the Sabres match, which would create no advantage to their program versus everyone else's program, including the states. Let's just don't create artificial incentives that undermine existing programs. Why don't we just again expand the pie and allow for everyone to compete so that there's as much universal coverage as possible? But we're pretty convinced that would completely undermine existing, both private sector and state-based programs if it weren't active.
Speaker 1:Thank you. What I like about it is my memory about this. May be wrong, Brian, but I don't know if the Sabres match goes to state programs.
Speaker 3:I know.
Speaker 1:Brian it does now, because what I think is my goal is to get that 30% to also participate.
Speaker 3:Well, the EEG would not help with that at all. It's just an auto enrollment program, Just like the states do. They're just having the federal government provide a match that the states can't afford.
Speaker 1:So let's just say that I think what the best idea that I can come up with is to have a way that everybody participates in a savings program and that we get the 30% in and that they get a credit, and that is really, I think, the most important goal. And I don't know how to do that. And there are two questions that I think are, I think, coverage, well, the auto stuff. So what it could happen this way, brian, right One, the EEG proposal may get the NEO bill passed.
Speaker 3:That is possible. That would be a very good result.
Speaker 1:So you know what I mean, yeah.
Speaker 3:If it leverages to get something like the NEO bill.
Speaker 1:If A, it might get the NEO bill passed, or B, which or B, it might get some of the states more states on board To do it yeah.
Speaker 1:Because we really have, as you pointed out, we have 19,. Or maybe I pointed out we have 19 states but, as you well pointed out, not all of them are performing as well as they should. So I am not. So I just think what we need to do is get people more interested in talking about this, because my experience with retirement is that it puts the word retirement puts people in a fetal position, as I was saying. They're afraid of it, they're scared of it, they don't think there are any answers, and so the EEG bill may not be the right answer for a number of reasons, but what it does do, it does.
Speaker 3:It gets people talking about the issue of.
Speaker 1:It gets people talking about the issue and it seems to give a lot of people a lot of money, so it makes them less afraid.
Speaker 3:So they do hand out. Apparently, they do hand out a lot of checks.
Speaker 1:So I think it has that value. That just if you get my drift.
Speaker 3:I get your drift.
Speaker 1:That's all I'm saying, and so I think that's a reasonably fair point.
Speaker 3:You're putting a silver line, you're putting some lipstick on a pig, but it's good lipstick, so I understand the point.
Speaker 1:That's what I think is helpful, because most people, most times when people talk about retirement, they're being told you have not saved enough. You should have been saving for the last 12 years. You have not done your duty, which means everybody feels guilty and shame and they don't want to talk about it.
Speaker 3:Why is it that you know? So that's my view of the EEG no no, and your point is a good one in the sense that you know, as we're. You know, the people listening to this podcast are all in the retirement world, and so they think about this stuff all the time. You and I think about this stuff all the time, but the truth is, the vast majority of members of Congress, the vast majority of White House administrations, presidents, don't they?
Speaker 1:don't talk about it at all. They don't. That's the point why.
Speaker 3:Why don't you know? Even putting the coverage issue aside for a second, you still have 80 plus million people in this country who've got 401k or, you know, for 3B for the seven accounts. Why don't why? Why is it more? Why is it not seen as more politically important? Whether it be this administration, prior administrations that you've had affiliations with, I'll tell you what am? I missing here.
Speaker 1:Um, this is my experience, because there's not a constituency and the reason there's not a con. This, ladies, and people yes, but so I compare it to there's not an organized constituency.
Speaker 1:There's not. It's like mental. It's like mental health. 30 years ago, Did we have mental health problems? 30 years ago, sure yes, but did anybody want to talk about it? No. Did we have wife? Did we have abuse of women 35 years ago? Yes, but did anybody want to talk about it? No, it it people? Why? Because people thought it was embarrassing. It was their fault.
Speaker 3:It was it's too personal a topic. Retirement savings.
Speaker 1:Yes, because because if you look, I'm going to, I'm being, if 20 year olds can talk about it, because they don't feel guilty. But if you look at the advertisements on the on TV, all the advertisements the yachts no, not the yachts.
Speaker 1:The advertisements say we will help you reach your goals. Right, thank you. They don't say it's the system's fault for not making it easy for you to retire. So when I talked to the military spouses about the difficulty of saving, I said well, it's difficult to talk about retirement. She said not for us, because we think it's the system's fault. So because we think it's the system's fault, we blame the system. It's very easy for us to talk about it, but most of Americans think it's their fault and because they think it's their fault, they can't organize. So until we change the language. So for and this is the analysis that I gave, I tried to give, it was not successful, but I'll give it to you, brian I said in the 1960s we had many people die from car accidents and we said we're going to change the way Rosa built and cars are built and we're going to change the point and we're going to use we're going to test people for alcohol.
Speaker 1:When I was growing up I didn't know the word point 08, did you? No, didn't exist. Everybody knows what point 08 is now Everybody. My children made me use the seat belts. I never used a seat belt. It was my kids because the roads didn't have all those side parts and all the lights that changed.
Speaker 3:I drove across the country in a in a drove. I rode across the country in a country square wagon all the way in the back in those jump seats there were no seat belts and half the time I had I was bouncing up and down, my head was hitting the ceiling, which explains the plot actually.
Speaker 1:Thank you. So because of all, exactly because the system changed, the number of deaths per 100,000 were cut in half. We changed how we did things, and you can say the same thing about a lot of other systems. And the coverage of four of retirement coverage has not changed, but it's only changed by 1% in the last 30 years.
Speaker 3:Well, it's only just now to change it because of what the state's been doing.
Speaker 1:Yeah, but that's the point. And so, but, but, but, but why is it? I'll give you a, give me a butt.
Speaker 3:But that's the I know I understand what you're saying. The question is why? Why isn't it seen as a politically significant topic with? You know, particularly I mean it's been frustrating for me as I've tried to convince Democrats to try to make it an issue. Surprisingly, trump said talked about 401k is probably more than any other president has ever done. You know not, you know better or worse, and but we have not been able to try with Obama, try with Clinton.
Speaker 1:It's because I gave you the answer. It's because it think of mental health.
Speaker 3:Think of. They think politically. It's a topic that their constituencies won't want to hear about.
Speaker 1:It's go to a dinner party without. That is not part of your constituent, part of your gang, and try to talk about retirement.
Speaker 3:Yeah.
Speaker 1:And see how many people want to listen to you.
Speaker 1:All right, so I'm sorry, that's and no, no, no, no, no and that's. I mean I had when I was the Department of Labor. I had 12 hearings around the States to talk about retirement because I wanted to increase the number of groups that were interested in retirement. And the best, the best hearing we had, I would say, in terms of increasing the numbers, was in Washington state. So I'm really glad the treasure Washington state was terrific and interesting enough. In Mississippi we did it at the Center for Justice in Mississippi and they produced about 150 people, but most the places were the same old gang.
Speaker 3:It was like pulling teeth.
Speaker 1:Well, it wasn't pulling teeth, it was just saying hey, nice to see you again.
Speaker 3:Oh okay, Same old gang Got it.
Speaker 1:It's the same old gang, because most people are afraid of the topic and blame themselves and don't. And that's why if you go to funders, I mean, I don't know, is this what you want to talk about on your podcast? Sure, you can talk about anything. If you go to funders, you go to most foundations, except for Atlantic, which went out of business, as you know, which did fund retirement. All funders, they fund childcare, that's important.
Speaker 3:You're talking about the public policy.
Speaker 1:Yes, why.
Speaker 3:More liberal leaning think tanks. It's just not an issue for them.
Speaker 1:Or anything. The only think tanks that funded are financial think tanks. Right, because all the other think tanks are, like themselves, embarrassed about how little they've saved. The people who run those think tanks, the people who sit behind the desk and write the check.
Speaker 2:I went.
Speaker 1:I'm just telling you, I went to a six-year-old, so anyway.
Speaker 3:So you've been following politics for a long time. Social security, you just you may have seen these proposals to get rid of the 401K and use the money to pay for social security. You can imagine my reaction to that. But I think more importantly, what do you think it's going to take to have an honest debate about addressing what is less than 10 years? According to the Social Security Trust's report, less than 10 years, social Security will go into a deficit situation and there will be mandatory 24% cut in benefits. Now that's I'm assuming you agree that's a political impossibility. So, assuming that's a political impossibility, what's it going to take to have an adult conversation on how to fix this?
Speaker 1:Well, Brian, you and I are going to disagree with that. I did. I did 10 years ago or five years ago, whatever it was. This is my Joe Biden moment. I went to a Brookings Institute that's where I can't remember the year and, look, heard the lessons from Denmark that says having a tax deduction doesn't make any difference because the tax breaks go to 60% of the tax breaks go to 20% of the population, which is why we enacted the Savers Match to compensate for that. Yes, so I love the Savers Match.
Speaker 3:So my I'm going to you finish, but I'm going to tell you why the Denmark study is completely well I.
Speaker 1:The truth is, this is what I know being in that top group. You know being being fortunate.
Speaker 3:Oh sure, but what you're ignoring is the hairdresser. So the reason the hairdresser wants to tax us out.
Speaker 3:Let me finish. The reason the tax hairdresser wants to tax incentive, the business owner wants that tax incentive, is because the non-discrimination rules which all of these studies ignore, in addition to ignoring the Savers Match, all of these studies don't take into account the fact that we have these rules, top heavy ADP tests, all of these complicated rules. But they serve a purpose and so when the business owner, who can afford to save, gets the tax benefit, they have to provide those matching contributions on behalf of their employees in order for them to get the tax incentive.
Speaker 1:Okay, so this is the deal.
Speaker 3:That leverage that the Denmark study the state of the religion.
Speaker 1:let me finish Right.
Speaker 3:Okay, the state of the Alishah Menel did is surely looking at the the incidents of marginal tax rates, ignoring completely the impact of the non-discrimination rules and the fact that it forces employers to provide actual benefits to workers.
Speaker 1:Okay, I have a better idea.
Speaker 3:Okay, mandate savings. That's the Neilville. We love the Neilville.
Speaker 1:So that's it. Mandate the savings, then you don't have to have the tax benefit. Just mandate savings.
Speaker 3:No, I still think you need the tax benefit. No, you don't. No, you don't, you're going to agree.
Speaker 1:We are going to just, we're just going to disagree on that, because I will tell you, I've done enrollment meetings of employees.
Speaker 3:Yeah, all of my constituency. What they do is they go into the workplace and they talk to employees about the value of tax deferral. I know, but if they're going to, let me finish the fact that as they're going along, they're not going to pay capital gains taxes and all this other stuff, and they're you know economists sit there in their ivory tower and they talk about nudging and automatic enrollment, but none of them have ever actually done an enrollment meeting with real people and I can tell you for a fact that the tax incentive is a huge selling point in convincing modern income people to save.
Speaker 1:I know, but guess what If you had a mandate you wouldn't have.
Speaker 3:We're never going to mandate people to save without opt out. That's the 30% you're talking. It's going to be 30%, it's going to be 80% opting out. They're not getting any benefit from saving. Why in the world are they going to do it? Because because If you think you can pass the mandate without opting out, you're going to have to do it.
Speaker 1:You know what the state plans didn't have. They didn't get any tax benefit from savings.
Speaker 2:No, they didn't, no, they didn't, they're wrong.
Speaker 3:They're tax free.
Speaker 1:No, they did not get anything. No, they didn't.
Speaker 3:Those are Roth accounts, Kathleen.
Speaker 1:They did not get anything.
Speaker 3:No wrong, wrong. Those are Roth accounts and they're going to get the savers amount. You're 100% wrong.
Speaker 1:Now they're getting it Now, but in the first. Now because of but they're wrong, but they're wrong. They're wrong, they're tax free accounts. They're tax free accounts, ryan, what? When I talked to Josh Gottbaum about this, he lobbied his tail off To get the states to be able to get a tax Right off For the state plans. But before, yeah, but the wrong thing, they did not get any.
Speaker 3:I swear to God they're Roth accounts. They did not get. In fact, you can call. You can call your friends over at Georgetown and fact check me, but I promise you they are.
Speaker 3:Well they. And having tax free savings, as opposed to these poor, lower income people having to pay capital. Get you you have I know you have a brokerage account because you're fortunate you have a tent, this 1099. That you get from that TD Ameritrade or swab account. It's 80 pages long with all the little capital gains that you have in all. Could you worry?
Speaker 3:I'm an average person getting that, having to deal with that. The beauty of the Roth account is it's all tax free and all of those lower income people are. When they eventually retire, they're going to be able to take out of that account. It's going to be all retirement income with no taxes. That's a real benefit that these People, so called expert economists, are suggesting we lose.
Speaker 1:I think it's more important. I think it's more important In the greater scheme of things and we can, we're going to have a great time talking to each other it's more important that they have socials, that people have social security and something on top of social security to retire. That is, that's the most important thing.
Speaker 3:We don't need to raw Peter to pay Paul here.
Speaker 1:I think.
Speaker 3:I think it's a mistake to blow up a system that is actually working.
Speaker 1:It is not working. It is not working, it is not working. How do?
Speaker 3:you say that when you're involved with all of these, you've said we talked about.
Speaker 1:Okay, we're just working, it's working.
Speaker 2:You know what it?
Speaker 1:it it, the fact that I'm raising my voice is not helpful for either of us and it's really not helpful for their listeners, because they're saying, hmm, hmm, I don't think this is.
Speaker 3:I have a feeling they're going to. I think huh. This is a lot what I guarantee you. They're going to enjoy this a lot, so you think so.
Speaker 1:How many, how many times do you get into discussions? Oh, that's what the fun of this is.
Speaker 3:This is a true DC kind of conversation that you and I have to form.
Speaker 1:Anyway, we disagree about it. I do think that all the tax, the tax benefits, go all to the, to the well off. And I don't look at your face, you know what. I'm really disappointed that this is a podcast because I can't see your cute eyes getting so large when you are looking at me.
Speaker 3:Again, I think, I think a lot about it.
Speaker 1:I'm really sorry that your listeners are missing.
Speaker 3:You're very sick, I will say, kathleen, to respond to that point. All of those, all that academic work so-called completely ignores the impact of the non-discrimination rules and it's frustrating to me that they just blow that off and just ignore the fact that we have all these rules that require employers, particularly small business owners, to provide these matching contributions and other contributions for their worker. Anyway, let's, let's move off of that topic.
Speaker 1:Let's move off of that topic. We're not getting anywhere with that, but don't you think it's funny that your friend Andy Biggs supports it?
Speaker 3:I have no idea what Andy was thinking on that one. I, I, I, you know for a quote other than the fact that he's now a Social Security trustee, so maybe he has the best of interest. Insatine Social Security, insatine Social Security. So there you go. So there you go.
Speaker 1:I think we should just make sure that your listeners know that Andy Biggs, who is is part of AEI, part of the conservative think tank.
Speaker 3:He's theoretically seen as a conservative.
Speaker 1:Also supports this.
Speaker 3:So I just want to make it clear.
Speaker 1:They wrote a paper about it, and that and that the EIG account that you also disagreed with is supported by Donald Trump's head of economic advisors. So I just think it's important to understand.
Speaker 3:I think it is that there are conservatives out there that are just as critical of the system as there are liberal.
Speaker 1:Yes. So I thought you were going to say just. I thought you were going to say just as crazy as liberals because they both start with CR. I didn't know how far it was going to go.
Speaker 3:But you didn't ask my question about putting things aside. The 401k thing, yeah, how? How do we have a? How are we going to have a meaningful, honest debate about social security?
Speaker 1:Well, as you, as you may or may not know, when my father was a US Senator, he suggested that we tax income from stocks and bonds, and I think that's a good idea, and I think we should I mean don't we do that already. Capital, Not for not for social security.
Speaker 3:You mean saying like another tax on top of it? Yeah Well, he did that for Medicare, medicare surcharge, right?
Speaker 1:No, but I'm saying for social security.
Speaker 3:So another, so they would be attacked. Oh, you're talking about transaction tax.
Speaker 1:Yeah, no, not a transaction, just just you like. Remember, some of us get our income not only from our work.
Speaker 3:Yeah, so you're saying that there should be. Oh, you should pay social security tax on that ink. Ah.
Speaker 1:Yes, we should rate, we should. I mean, let me just tell you, tell you a story. You may not think this is interesting.
Speaker 3:So remember. I think it's immensely interesting.
Speaker 1:Okay, so I remember I worked, I was lieutenant governor, I ran for Congress, and then I started working for a financial firm and then one day I saw that my pay went up. And I said what happened? Why has my pay gone up this week? And they said oh yours, you don't have to pay social security anymore. And I said what are you kidding? There's a cap.
Speaker 1:I make more money and now I don't have to pay social security. What kind of world do I live in? I thought the more money you make, the more you're supposed to pay, and now I'm learning. The point of this story is I was in politics for 35 or 40, 35 years and I didn't. I didn't know that social security had a cap, and if I didn't know, I think most Americans don't know that there's a cap on your social security.
Speaker 3:Perhaps most politicians don't know, so why don't?
Speaker 1:so why aren't the candidates and I created around the investment firm. I cannot believe. I'm getting more money and I'm paying less taxes. I was in the total state of shock? What?
Speaker 3:so why do you think of that story, Brian? I think it's kind of funny.
Speaker 2:So, why?
Speaker 3:why aren't you in the fact that we have this impending? You know, deficit situation of the trust fund. Why is it that presidential candidates don't talk about this issue at all?
Speaker 1:Oh, you know why, brian? Because one. There are two answers to it. One, raise to access, or two, lower benefits. And guess what? Neither of those things are popular. That's going to really help.
Speaker 3:That's going to help solve the problem.
Speaker 1:How long have you been in Washington, Brian?
Speaker 3:Not as long as you, but that's true. 35 years.
Speaker 1:I've been doing this for 35 years.
Speaker 3:I've been here since I was a month old, Anyway it's very At a curiosity bonus question Does your brother ever talk about retirement policy issues?
Speaker 1:You mean the one that's running for president.
Speaker 3:One that's running for president.
Speaker 1:I don't think he has talked about it.
Speaker 3:He's talked about a lot of other stuff we all know, but has he ever talked about this?
Speaker 1:No, I don't think he has. That's a good question. I don't follow his campaign from day to day.
Speaker 3:I figured that. Anyway, well, it's been great talking to you, thank you, thank you. Retirement provocateur, and no, you've really helped. You know we don't always agree, Kathleen, as you know, but we always. That's fine. I think it's a good question, and usually it's the vigorous debate that produces the you know, the best compromises, and I hope that's what the thing is, it's better to have a debate, it's better to be interested, it's better to be talking about something than to ignore it.
Speaker 1:So thank you, brian, and thank you for being there and fighting and always and I think that's a good question you know saying we've got to do something about this and Hallelujah for your, for your energy and Thank you so Bravo. Thanks again, bye, bye, yeah.