Pension industry to fight for retirement plan tax breaks: IN’s Schoeff

In a campaign season dominated by antipathy toward Washington, it was unusual to hear a ringing endorsement of Capitol Hill lobbying recently at the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries annual conference.

The third day of the meeting, Oct. 19, began with a five-minute video extolling the virtues of the ASPPA political action committee. PACs are structures set up to collect donations from members of an organization that then are used to contribute to political campaigns.

The saying in Washington is that a PAC contribution to a member of Congress doesn’t buy a vote. But it can buy a meeting. A lawmaker is more likely to listen to groups that have given him or her money.

That hypothesis was the central theme of the ASPAA video, which was designed to encourage its members to write a check to the PAC.

“The PAC contribution allows ASPPA to get in front of people who actually make a difference,” said one of the ASPPA members interviewed for the video.

Another person interviewed for the piece said that even the smallest donation — $25, $50, $100 — ensures that “I’m part of what ASPPA is trying to do on behalf of my profession on Capitol Hill.”

Another said that the PAC “is what give us all as members [of ASPPA] an opportunity to have a much bigger voice on Capitol Hill.”

Employees also can give to a corporate PAC. Until a recent Supreme Court ruling, companies only could spend their PAC money on political activity. Now they have more latitude to dip into the corporate treasury.

By Washington standards, the ASPPA PAC is modest. It totaled $127,769 in 2008 and dispensed $113,776 to political candidates.

The ASPPA testimonials might grate on the ears of members of the Tea Party. Their distrust of the political process likely extends to those who are plying Congress for support of a particular industry.

The Obama administration also has made a big deal of demonstrating its support for the middle class, or more broadly, the average citizen, by attacking lobbyists and other “special interests.”

As any lobbyist will tell you, however, he or she plays a critical, even constitutional, role in policymaking. Lobbyists petition the government on behalf of their constituents. That’s a right encompassed in the First Amendment.

I’m not sure how many registered lobbyists there are at ASPPA, but even if they’re not formally lobbying, ASPAA staff will be trekking to Capitol Hill to help shape policy surrounding retirement security.

With voter anger rising in large part because of a burgeoning $1.294 trillion deficit, the next Congress is likely to focus on ways to raise tax revenue to help pay it down — or at least pay for new programs.

The existing tax breaks for retirement plans offer an inviting target. Tax-advantage defined-contribution plans will cost the government $184.3 billion in tax revenue over the period from 2009 to 2013, according to a report from the congressional Joint Committee on Taxation. Traditional IRAs will produce a so-called tax expenditure of $40.7 billion. The tally for Roth IRAs is $18.3 billion and for defined-benefit plans is $275.7 billion.

Of course, those pale in comparison to the recently passed tax break for employer-sponsored health care insurance — a bit of largesse that will cost the government total $568.3 billion.

On Capitol Hill, ASPAA representatives will make the point that while tax breaks for employer health coverage and mortgages are made on a cash basis, retirement plan contributions are tax-deferred.

They will urge policymakers to view the retirement benefits on a present value basis because taxes are imposed when money is taken out of the plans. Looking at the tax advantages through the present-value prism substantially reduces the “tax expenditures” figure.

“This will be an integral part of our message in the upcoming year,” said Judy Miller, ASPPA chief of actuarial issues.

ASPPA will be able to spread that message, thanks to its PAC. If it benefits Tea Party — and liberal — retirees, maybe the Tea Party and the Obama administration can give special interest groups a break.