Republicans | Pension360

What Congressional Gridlock Means for Federal Pensions

Gridlock has become the new norm in Congress. The last two Congressional sessions (112^th and 113^th) were arguably the two least-productive sessions in the history of the country.

Republicans now control both chambers, but that doesn’t mean the gridlock will end.

In fact, some observers say that in 2015, the trickle of meaningful bills coming out of either Congressional chamber could slow even further.

That could be good news for federal workers.

Why?

Because trimming federal retirement benefits is a popular idea among a group of lawmakers, and gridlock could stave off those cuts.

Federal News Radio explains:

In 2014, the to-do-list of many pols included plans to charge workers more, via payroll deduction, for their CSRS and FERS benefits. It could have resulted in a pay cut of 2, 3 or even 4 percent.

Also on the list was a big budget saver — a plan to trim future cost-of-living adjustments for current and future retirees by 0.3 percent each year, every year. People would still get COLAs. But in a diet-version.

NARFE’s Jessica Klement estimated the typical CSRS retiree would miss out on $50,000 in future benefits if the COLA calculation change was made. It wasn’t, in part because of gridlock.

[…]

There is an upside to gridlock, especially for active and retired members of the federal family. It kept politicians with political, personal or fiscal axes to grind (out of your hide) from chopping up your benefits package. Feds even got a token raise. While only 1 percent (same as this year) it was 100 percent more than they got in 2013, 2012 and 2011.

The gridlock also gives retiree advocates and labor groups more time to combat those policies.

Two lawmakers, Rep. Jason Chaffetz [R-Utah] and Rep. Mark Meadows [R-N.C.], are leading the push for civil service reform, including pension changes.

OpenRetirement covered their plans here.

In Congress, Leadership Shifts Could Lead to Retirement Plan Changes

Republicans control both houses of Congress, and there are many leadership shifts underway at the committee level as well. These shifts open the door for changes to retirement plans coming from the federal level.

One idea sure to be brought up is Senator Orrin Hatch’s SAFE Retirement Act. From Pensions and Investments:

At the committee level, the change of leadership raises the prospects for serious consideration of new retirement ideas, like incoming Senate Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch’s SAFE Retirement Act proposal, which would expand the use of multiple employer plans, allow public defined benefit pension funds to purchase private annuities, and create a “starter 401(k) plan” for small, private-sector employers.

Lawmakers could also take a closer look at defined-contribution plans and cash balance plans. From P&I:

As the tax reform debate heats up, “Republicans are going to want to cut expenses and raise revenue,” said Michael Webb, vice president of Cammack Retirement Group, Wellesley, Mass., a consulting firm specializing in defined contribution plans. “How do you do that? By changing things like deductibility on retirement plan contributions.”

Along with those discussions, “there might be opportunities in 2015 for retirement plan proposals that would enhance coverage and benefits,” said Kent Mason, an attorney at law firm Davis & Harman LLP, Washington, who is outside counsel for the American Benefits Council, Washington. He and others note that multiple employer plans enjoy bipartisan support in Congress, which could convince regulators to make them easier to create.

Both Republicans and Democrats would like to see more automatic enrollment and escalation in defined contribution plans. “This is showing up in bipartisan bills because (current default rates) are not high enough” for retirement security,” said Mr. Mason. “This is an area where I could see common ground.”

Hybrid retirement ideas like cash balance plans will come up early, starting with a Jan. 9 hearing on IRS regulations finalized in September for plan years after 2015. “I do think there is pent up demand for some type of DB (proposal),” said Alan Glickstein, Dallas-based senior retirement consultant at Towers Watson & Co. Hybrid pension plans for the military will also come up early in the year, when recommendations from the Military Compensation and Retirement Modernization Commission are due, sources said.

Read the full article here.

Investment Firm Charged With Violating SEC Pay-To-Play Rule After Making Political Donations While Working For Two Pension Funds

A Philadelphia-area private equity firm has become the first ever to be charged by the SEC for violating a pay-to-play rule set up in 2010 designed to prevent conflicts of interest when pension funds hire investment firms.

The firm, TL Ventures Inc, was charged with violating the rule after an employee at the firm made political contributions to Pennsylvania’s governor and Philadelphia’s mayor while the firm was doing work for the Philadelphia Board of Pensions and the Pennsylvania State Employees’ Retirement System.

The employee, an investment advisor, made a $2,500 campaign contribution to a candidate for Mayor of Philadelphia and a $2,000 contribution to a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania.

The SEC says that presented a conflict of interest because the Mayor and Governor appoint a total of nine members to the two pension boards for which TL Ventures was providing investment services for at the time of the donations.

Those boards are tasked with hiring investment firms to do advisory work for the pension funds.

Bracewell & Giuliani explains the specifics of the rule:

Rule 206 (4)-5, which was adopted in 2010, prohibits investment advisers from providing compensatory advisory services to a government client for a period of two years following a campaign contribution from the firm, or from defined investment advisers, to any government officials, or political candidates in a position to influence the selection or retention of advisers to manage public pension funds or other government client assets. Some de minimus contributions are permitted, topping out at $350 if the contributor is eligible to vote for the candidate, and the contribution is from the person’s personal funds.

TL Ventures has agreed to give up the $257,000 worth of fees it earned from the state, as well as pay a $35,000 fine.

Republicans are now suing the SEC in an attempt to block the rule, saying that preventing investment advisors from making political donations is, in effect, a restriction on free speech. From Reuters:

Republican politicians sued the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, seeking to throw out a rule that limits political donations by investment advisers.

The Republican state committees from New York and Tennessee said the federal securities regulator had flouted due procedure when adopting its Political Contribution Rule, which they said also violated the constitutional right to freedom of speech.

“The (rule) directly harms Plaintiffs, as potential donors have informed each Plaintiff that they will not make political contributions because of the SEC’s rule,” said the complaint before a federal court in the District of Columbia, which was filed late on Thursday.

The SEC in 2010 approved the rule, which prohibits investment advisers from making campaign contributions in the hope of being awarded lucrative contracts to manage public pension funds, a practice known as “pay to play”.

The plaintiffs want the court to decide that the rule violates the law and to stop the SEC from enforcing the rule with respect to federal campaign contributions.

Specifically, Republicans are arguing that the SEC violated the Administrative Procedures Act when drafting the law. The Act requires specific procedures to be followed when drafting rules.

The Administrative Procedures Rules has been used successfully to strike down previous SEC rules.

Photo by jypsygen via Flickr CC License