The center-right Washington, D.C., think tank American Enterprise Institute economist Andrew Biggs raises a legitimate concern about President Trump's State of the Union retirement proposal — and then draws exactly the wrong conclusion from it.

At the State of the Union address, President Trump announced plans for an executive action to give workers without employer-sponsored plans "access to the same type of retirement plan offered to every federal worker," paired with a federal match (passed during the Biden years) of up to $1,000 a year.

The proposal closely follows the bipartisan Retirement Savings for Americans Act, sponsored by Sens. Hickenlooper and Tillis and Reps. Sewell and Smucker. Biggs argues that for many low-income workers, an RSAA-style account could do more harm than good: accumulated savings might disqualify them from Medicaid and SSI, programs with strict asset limits, leaving them worse off than if they had never saved at all. Axios echoed the concern: portable accounts might help some workers but leave others with too many assets to qualify for long-term care Medicaid and not enough to replace it privately.

The critique is analytically coherent. It also rests on a foundation that no longer exists.

Biggs does not offer a retirement security strategy or anything positive or constructive. Sens. Tillis and Hickenlooper and Reps. Sewell and Smucker do have a plan, and it complements and lifts up President Trump’s vision for universal pensions.

A Safety Net For Retirement Security Is Not Guaranteed

Medicaid and the means-tested Supplemental Security Income program are not guaranteed. If retirees have enough money to avoid SSI or Medicaid, that is not a loss of dignity. Everyone needs access to a modest and independent supplement to Social Security.

Leonid Radvinsky, Secretive Porn Entrepreneur Turned OnlyFans Billionaire, Dies At 43

Tower Audio Suggests LaGuardia Controller May Have Been Distracted........

© Forbes