I don’t understand why Republicans oppose these plans. But they have voted to stop them, “repeal but not replaced” .

Last year the Department of Labor made 2 rules to help people save for their retirement if their employer did not. You’d think Congress would want to encourage that but they repealed the rules and haven’t offered any substitute. So it was a repeal without the replace that many would hope to see.

Maybe they will get around to the replace part but I haven’t heard anything yet. So for now it is “repeal but not replaced”.

About two-thirds of workers in the United states are eligible to participate in some sort of employer-sponsored retirement program. The remaining third or about 39 million workers have no employer-sponsored retirement program.

The rules are designed to help those workers set up a low cost plan via payroll deduction. One rule allows the states to set-up this plan and the other is directed toward qualified state political subdivisions that wish to do this.

Workers are not forced to participate but they can. I would think this is not burdensome to employers as they already have payroll deduction systems in place for things like taxes, social security, medicare, health insurance, etc.

It is certainly in the interest of both employees and the state or local government for people to go into retirement with some savings so they are not totally dependent of Social Security or various aid programs.

Yet Republicans stand united against this. I suppose there are some who would call this a bipartisan since a few abandoned their party but the votes are overwhelmingly partisan. Here are the vote totals for H.J. Res. 66 and H.J. Res. 67.

Why?