Your. . .Hmm. . . I mean OUR Retirement

[we vs us]

Ok, so I copy-pasta'ed the relevant sections, but feel free to post something from the release that contradicts me.

"SUMMARY: The Department of Labor and the Department of the Treasury (the "Agencies") are currently reviewing the rules under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) and the plan qualification rules under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) to determine whether, and, if so, how, the Agencies could or should enhance, by regulation or otherwise, the retirement security of participants in employer-sponsored retirement plans and in individual retirement arrangements (IRAs) by facilitating access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a lifetime stream of income after retirement. The purpose of this request for information is to solicit views, suggestions and comments from plan participants, employers and other plan sponsors, plan service providers, and members of the financial community, as well as the general public, on this important issue."

Further:

"Retirement security is provided to many workers through defined benefit pension plans
sponsored by their employers. Employers that sponsor defined benefit pension plans are responsible for making contributions that are sufficient for funding the promised benefit, investing and managing plan assets (as fiduciaries), and bearing investment risks because the employer, as plan sponsor, is required to make enough contributions to the plan to fund benefit payments during retirement. In addition, when the defined benefit pension plan pays (or offers to pay) a lifetime annuity, it provides (or offers to provide) protection against the risk of outliving one's assets in retirement (longevity risk).

Department of Labor data, however, show a trend away from sponsorship of defined
benefit plans, toward sponsorship of defined contribution plans. The number of active
participants in defined benefit plans fell from about 27 million in 1975 to approximately 20million in 2006, whereas the number of active participants in defined contribution plans increased from about 11 million in 1975 to 66 million in 2006.1

While defined contribution plans have some strengths relative to defined benefit plans,
participants in defined contribution plans bear the investment risk because there is no promise by the employer as to the adequacy of the account balance that will be available or the income stream that can be provided after retirement. Moreover, while defined benefit plans are generally required to make annuities available to participants at retirement, 401(k) and other defined contribution plans typically make only lump sums available. Furthermore, many traditional defined benefit plans have converted to lump sum-based hybrid plans, such as cash balance or pension equity plans, and many others have simply added lump sum options. Accordingly, with the continuing trend away from traditional defined benefit plans to 401(k) defined contribution plans and hybrid plans, including the associated trend away from annuities toward lump sum distributions, employees are not only increasingly responsible for the adequacy of their savings at the time of retirement, but also for ensuring that their savings last throughout their retirement years and, in many cases, the remaining lifetimes of their spouses and dependents.

In recognition of the foregoing, the Agencies are considering whether it would be
appropriate for them to take future steps to facilitate access to, and use of, lifetime income or other arrangements designed to provide a stream of income after retirement. This includes a review of existing regulations and other guidance and consideration of whether any such steps would enhance the retirement security of participants in retirement plans, taking into account potential effects on and tradeoffs involving other policy objectives. To that end, this request for information (RFI) sets forth a number of questions that are generally organized into categories under which the Agencies may be able to provide additional guidance if appropriate. This RFI also includes a number of questions pertaining to the economic impact of rulemaking, and to impediments beyond the statutory requirements, if any. Commenters are not limited to these questions and are invited to respond to all or any subset of the questions, but the Agencies request that commenters relate their responses to specific questions when possible."

So:  looking at Gassy's sentence in isolation might make one question the RFI's intent.  Taken in context (you know, with nearby paragraphs included) it's clear that the guv is actually trying to decide if lump-sum payouts from private pension programs are better than payouts in annuity form.  

That's pretty much it.  

[Gaspar]

facilitating access to, and use of

Wevs,

Obviously, depending on your view of the roll of government this statement has different meaning.  I didn't realize it, but this is an excellent example of how different political philosophies interpret things.  Now I understand why this would not alarm you or even raise a flag in your mind.

To break it down, lets focus on the single word FACILITATING.

Who will be in charge of the facilitating?   Government.

Who will make the decision to or not to grant access to private money?  Government.

Does government do this with any other retirement system?  Yes. . .Social Security.

Has government through legislation ever opted to borrow against accounts for which it has the control to facilitate access?  Yes.

Do you believe that government, once it has access and governance over private accounts, will not find a way to leverage those accounts against debt, or the finance of wonderful new programs for the good of the "children & old people"?

[Conan71]

Gaspar:

[we vs us]

Look, it's not that I won't have a discussion about deficits or the proper role of government in our lives or any of the rest of it.  But there is nothing whatsoever in this RFI to support the contention that the guv is trying to confiscate private retirement accounts.  This is only about how to tweak the already-regulated pension and 401k environment to best serve retirees.  

I've read this thing five times over now.  Please find something that actually says it's going to borrow against, take over, or in general confiscate private retirement accounts to offset the deficit and post that quote.  Please.   Otherwise we're really just talking about your obscure attempts at kremlinology.