In last night’s Pennsylvania primary, Hillary Clinton won a sweeping if not quite overwhelming victory, receiving 55 percent of the vote and reducing Barack Obama’s overall popular vote edge by more than 200,000. Because of the Democratic party’s system of proportional representation, she netted fewer than 15 pledged delegates. These results have quieted calls for her to leave the race and will probably slow the steady flow of superdelegates to Obama. Nonetheless, her path to the nomination remains steep.

The demographics of the Pennsylvania vote followed a now-familiar pattern. Obama won among voters younger than 40, while Clinton prevailed among older voters. Obama won in big cities and some inner suburbs; Clinton carried suburbs overall while winning more than 60 percent of the small town and rural vote. Clinton did 9 points worse among men than among women, who constituted 59 percent of last night’s voters. She received 62 percent of the vote from gun-owning households and almost three-fifths of the vote from union households. Obama carried voters from families making less than $15,000 and more than $150,000; Clinton carried everyone in between. She received 64 percent of the vote from high school graduates but only 48 percent from college graduates. Obama won 55 percent of the vote among those who consider themselves “very liberal,” while Clinton got 60 percent of the vote among self-described moderates. Clinton took 56 percent among long-time Democrats, while Obama took 62 percent of new Democratic primary voters—principally Republicans and Independents who registered as Democrats to participate, but also the 4 percent of the primary electorate that previously been unregistered.

There is evidence that religion, gender and race all figured in the results. Clinton received 58 percent of the white Protestant vote and a stunning 71 percent of white Catholics. Obama got 64 percent of those who profess no religion and 56 percent of those who never attend church. Clinton did 22 points better among those who said gender was important than among those who did not. (Intriguingly, men who said it mattered were also more likely to support Clinton.) By contrast, race appears to have been a negative for Obama: whites who said it mattered gave 75 percent of their votes to Clinton, versus only 58 percent for those who said it did not. While nearly half the whites for whom race mattered refused to say that they would be willing to support Obama in the general election, their sentiments may well soften in coming months as differences between the parties come to the fore.

The long campaign mattered, and it left some bruises. 68 percent of the voters said that Clinton had attacked unfairly; 50 percent thought Obama had. Nearly a quarter of the electorate thought that Clinton was solely responsible for unfair attacks, versus only 6 percent who thought Obama was. Only 57 percent of the electorate thought that Clinton was honest and trustworthy, versus 67 percent for Obama. Only 40 percent said they would be satisfied if either candidate won; 32 percent wanted only Clinton, and 23 percent only Obama. But however negative the contest may have turned, it appears to have worked to Clinton’s advantage: she received 57 percent among voters who decided during the last week before the primary, 5 points better than she did among those who decided earlier.

The results also confirmed the surge in concern about the economy. Fifty-five percent of the voters regarded the economy as the top issue, versus only 27 percent for the war in Iraq and a modest 14 percent for health care. Obama prevailed only among voters who gave top priority to Iraq, while Clinton received 54 percent of the health care voters and 58 percent of the economy voters.

Attention now shifts to the May 6 primaries in North Carolina and Indiana. Obama is expected to prevail in North Carolina, but Indiana offers a level playing field. A split decision would be likely to prolong the race, while an Obama sweep might well induce many undecided superdelegates to declare for him and bring this protracted contest to an end. In addition, Obama’s fundraising edge is becoming increasingly important. Not long into her victory speech, Clinton made an urgent pitch for new contributions. Facing a mounting debt and dwindling cash on hand, her ability to continue on until the end of the primary and caucus season in early June may well depend on the size and speed of her supporters’ response.

On March 5, Chinese President Xi Jinping spoke to the Shanghai delegates to the National People’s Congress (NPC) session in Beijing. China’s top leaders use these side meetings to convey policy guidance on a range of issues, and Xi used this particular one to offer his perspective on relations with Taiwan. There has been some nervousness in the wake of the January 16 elections, which swept the opposition Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) to power in both the executive and legislative branches. Because the Beijing government has always suspected that the fundamental objective of the DPP is to permanently separate Taiwan from China, observers were waiting expectantly to hear what Xi would have to say about Taiwan.

Well before the March 5 speech, of course, Xi’s subordinates responsible for Taiwan policy had already laid out what Taiwan President-elect Tsai Ing-wen and her party would have to do to prevent cross-Strait relations from deteriorating, and they continued to emphasize those conditions after Xi’s speech. But analysts believed that Xi’s own formulation would be the clearest indicator of Beijing’s policy. He is, after all, China’s paramount leader, and his words carry a far greater weight than those of other Chinese officials.

This is what Xi said to the Shanghai NPC delegation about Taiwan [translation by the author, emphasis added]:

Compatriots on the two sides of the Strait are blood brothers who share a common destiny, and are people for whom blood is thicker than water…Our policy towards Taiwan is correct and consistent, and will not change because of a change in [who heads] the Taiwan authorities. We will insist upon the political foundation of the “1992 consensus,” and continue to advance cross-Strait relations and peaceful development…If the historical fact of the “1992 consensus” is recognized and if its core connotation is acknowledged, then the two sides of the Strait will have a common political basis and positive interaction [virtuous circle] can be preserved. We will steadily push forward cross-Strait dialogue and cooperation in various fields, deepen cross-Strait economic, social, and financial development, and increase the familial attachment and welfare of compatriots [on both sides], close their spiritual gap, and strengthen their recognition that they share a common destiny. We will resolutely contain the separatist path of any form of Taiwan independence, protect state sovereignty and territorial integrity, and absolutely not allow a repetition of the historical tragedy of national separation. This is the common wish and firm intention of all Chinese sons and daughters, and is also our solemn pledge and obligation to history and to the people. The fruits of cross-Strait relations and peaceful development require the common support of compatriots on the two sides; creating a common and happy future requires the common effort of compatriots on the two sides; and realizing the great revival of the Chinese nation requires that compatriots on the two sides join hands to work with one heart.

The italicized sentences are key: They state what the new DPP government should do if it wishes to maintain healthy cross-Strait relations and affirms Beijing’s resolve to oppose any behavior it doesn’t like. Xi didn’t threaten specific actions, but he probably didn’t have to. As always, Beijing reserves the right to decide what DPP attitudes and actions constitute separatism and a quest for Taiwan independence. 

Xi didn’t threaten specific actions, but he probably didn’t have to.

Some background

There are two important points of reference contextualizing this statement from Xi. 

Xi on November 7, 2015. First, there are his reported remarks on the future of cross-Strait relations during his unprecedented meeting with current Taiwan president Ma Ying-jeou in Singapore last November 7. At that time, Xi first appealed to ethnic solidarity and national unity, as he did again on March 5. He asserted that the stakes to end the state of division between Mainland China and Taiwan were very high because it was a critical part of how he views rejuvenating the Chinese nation—a theme he repeated to the Shanghai delegation. 

Xi said Taiwan, under the new government, could either continue to follow the path it has walked for the last seven-plus years under the current Ma Ying-jeou administration (“peaceful development”), or it could take the path of renewed “confrontation,” “separation,” and zero-sum hostility. If Taiwan wished to follow the first path, Xi insisted, its leaders must adhere to the 1992 consensus and oppose “Taiwan independence.” Without this “magic compass that calms the sea,” Xi warned, “the ship of peaceful development will meet with great waves and even suffer total loss.” He was willing to overlook the DPP’s past positions and actions, but only if it identified with “the core connotation of the 1992 consensus” (a reference to the PRC view that the Mainland and Taiwan are both within the territorial scope of China, a view the DPP contests). Xi alluded to the “core connotation” on March 5 but did not re-state its content. Xi then made clear that if “disaster” occurred, it would be the DPP’s fault—it was therefore up to Tsai, he implied, to accommodate to Beijing’s conditions. 

In language and tone, Xi’s Singapore statement was far more strident and alarmist than what he said on March 5. He made that first statement more than two months before the election, when perhaps he thought that tough talk would weaken Tsai’s and the DPP’s appeal to voters. If that was his objective, he failed. The tone of his March 5 remarks was more modulated, but the substance was the same. Beijing would define the crossroads that Taiwan faced, and it was up to Tsai to take the right path—at least what it defined the right path.

Beijing would define the crossroads that Taiwan faced, and it was up to Tsai to take the right path—at least what it defined the right path.

Tsai on January 21, 2016. Second, there is an interview that Tsai gave to Liberty Times (Tzu-yu Shih Pao) on January 21—less than a week after the elections—in which she sought to meet Beijing partway. For the first time, she used the phrase “political foundation” and said it had four elements: 

• “The first is that the SEF-ARATS discussions of 1992 are a historical fact and both sides had a common acknowledgment to set aside differences and seek common ground;” 
• “The second is the Republic of China’s current constitutional order.”
• “The third is the accumulated results of the more than 20 years of cross-strait negotiations, exchanges, and interactions;” and
• “The fourth is Taiwan’s democratic principles and the will of the Taiwanese people to make sure that Taiwan voters understood the limits to his tolerance.”

So, Tsai accepts the 1992 meetings as a historical fact and acknowledges that the two sides did reach an agreement of sorts, but does not accept the 1992 consensus itself as a historical fact. She spoke more about process than content. The Republic of China’s “current constitutional order” is also part of the foundation, which some have read as Tsai’s acceptance that the Mainland and Taiwan are both parts of China’s territory (Beijing’s “core connotation”)—I, however, am not so sure. Tsai did not reject Xi’s requirements out of hand, but she framed them in her own way. 

So are ties growing friendlier?

Was Xi’s tonal moderation on March 5—relative to November 7—an indicator that mutual accommodation was going on? Perhaps. But the fact that the November meeting was ostensibly private while the March speech was public might explain the difference. 

Moreover, the stream of Chinese articles and statements since March 5 that explicitly restate Beijing’s long-standing preconditions are reason to doubt that much accommodation is actually occurring. The three basic scenarios I outlined last December—accommodation, limited Chinese punishment of the Tsai administration, and comprehensive punishment—are still in play, and the key variable remains whether Xi and his subordinates trust Tsai Ing-wen’s basic intentions. That is, will they accept her recent formulations as a good-faith effort to avoid deterioration? The next milestone will be May 20, when Tsai Ing-wen gives her inaugural address and may provide a more detailed formulation of her approach to China.

Exactly one year after U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry’s last multi-country tour of sub-Saharan Africa, he is preparing for another visit to the continent—to Kenya and Djibouti from May 3 to 5, 2015. In Kenya, Kerry and a U.S. delegation including Linda Thomas-Greenfield, assistant secretary of state for African affairs, will engage in talks with senior Kenyan officials on U.S.-Kenya security cooperation, which the U.S. formalized through its Security Governance Initiative (SGI) at the U.S.-Africa Leaders Summit last August. Over the past several years, the U.S. has increased its military assistance to Kenya and African Union (AU) troops to combat the Somali extremist group al-Shabab and has conducted targeted drone strikes against the group’s top leaders.  In the wake of the attack on Kenya’s Garissa University by al-Shabab, President Obama pledged U.S. support for Kenya, and Foreign Minister Amina Mohamed has stated that Kenya is currently seeking additional assistance from the U.S. to strengthen its military and intelligence capabilities.

Kerry will also meet with a wide array of leaders from Kenya’s private sector, civil society, humanitarian organizations, and political opposition regarding the two countries’ “common goals, including accelerating economic growth, strengthening democratic institutions, and improving regional security,” according to a U.S. State Department spokesperson. These meetings are expected to build the foundation for President Obama’s trip to Kenya for the Global Entrepreneurship Summit in July of this year.

On Tuesday, May 5, Kerry will become the first sitting secretary of state to travel to Djibouti. There, he will meet with government officials regarding the evacuation of civilians from Yemen and also visit Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. military base from which it coordinates its counterterror operations in the Horn of Africa region.

This week saw the proliferation of anti-government street demonstrations as current President Pierre Nkurunziza declared his candidacy for a third term, after being in office for ten years.  The opposition has deemed this move as “unconstitutional” and in violation of the 2006 Arusha peace deal which ended the civil war. Since the announcement, hundreds of civilians took to the streets of Bujumbura, despite a strong military presence. At least six people have been killed in clashes between police forces and civilians. 

Since the protests erupted, leading human rights activist Pierre-Claver Mbonimpa has been arrested alongside more than 200 protesters. One of Burundi’s main independent radio stations was also suspended as they were covering the protests.  On Wednesday, the government blocked social media platforms, including Twitter and Facebook, declaring them important tools in implementing and organizing protests. Thursday, amid continuing political protests, Burundi closed its national university and students were sent home. 

Amid the recent protests, Burundi’s constitutional court will examine the president’s third term bid. Meanwhile, U.N. secretary general Ban Ki-moon has sent his special envoy for the Great Lakes Region to hold a dialogue with president Nkurunziza and other government authorities. Senior U.S. diplomat Tom Malinowski also arrived in Bujumbura on Thursday to help defuse the biggest crisis the country has seen in the last few years, expressing disappointment over Nkurunziza’s decision to run for a third term.

Since the early 2000s, China has become an increasingly significant source of financing for African infrastructure projects, as noted in a recent Brookings paper, “Financing African infrastructure: Can the world deliver?” This week, observers have seen an additional spike in African infrastructure investments from Chinese firms, as three major railway, real estate, and other infrastructure deals were struck on the continent, totaling nearly $7.5 billion in investments.

On Monday, April 27, the state-owned China Railway Construction Corp announced that it will construct a $3.5 billion railway line in Nigeria, as well as a $1.9 billion real estate project in Zimbabwe. Then on Wednesday, the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (one of the country’s largest lenders) signed a $2 billion deal with the government of Equatorial Guinea in order to carry out a number of infrastructure projects throughout the country. These deals align with China’s “One Belt, One Road” strategy of building infrastructure in Africa and throughout the developing world in order to further integrate their economies, stimulate economic growth, and ultimately increase demand for Chinese exports. For more insight into China’s infrastructure lending in Africa and the implications of these investments for the region’s economies, please see the following piece by Africa Growth Initiative Nonresident Fellow Yun Sun: “Inserting Africa into China’s One Belt, One Road strategy: A new opportunity for jobs and infrastructure?”

Today, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sissi is witnessing the most vocal and angry objection to his rule since he took power via a military coup in 2013. Across Cairo and beyond, Egyptians are gathering and chanting some of the same slogans from the January 2011 revolution—such as “the people want the fall of the regime” and “down with military rule.” These protests are not a spontaneous uprising. They were planned and announced on April 15, when thousands of Egyptians took to the streets, protesting the latest in a series of bold and controversial decisions that are slowly and steadily chipping away at Sissi’s once solid support structure abroad and at home.

During Saudi King Salman’s recent visit to Cairo, the Egyptian government announced that it had agreed to transfer sovereignty of two Red Sea islands—Tiran and Sanafir—to Saudi Arabia. This decision, which coincided with a $22 billion oil and aid deal, has a clear short term pay-off: a substantial Band-Aid on Egypt’s gaping economic wounds. But Sissi and his government are once again dramatically underestimating just how self-destructive their behavior can be. As my colleague Tamara Wittes eloquently noted, Egypt “continues to throw obstacles in the road of U.S.-Egyptian cooperation.” But even worse than the self-sabotage in Egypt’s foreign relations is the damage Sissi is doing to his reputation at home. 

The decision to transfer the islands to Saudi Arabia may turn out to be the final nail in Sissi’s coffin.

To the streets, again

Following the announcement of this decision, Egyptians took to Twitter, with the hashtag “leave” and “I didn’t elect Sissi” trending in Egypt. Lawyers filed lawsuits in Egyptian courts opposing the agreement. And plans were made for a much larger protest today, Sinai Liberation Day. 

But today’s protests are different than in the past. First, while the anti-Sissi protesters had time to plan and coordinate their actions, so did the regime. Today, pro-Sissi supporters organized their own protests, proudly waving the Saudi flag in Cairo’s symbolic Tahrir Square. The Egyptian Air Force painted the Egyptian flag in the sky. And the security forces came out in droves early today across greater Cairo, closing off access to most of the usual protests sites (such as the Journalists’ Syndicate and the Doctors’ Syndicate) and making a massive show of force to deter people from coming out. 

The government clearly learned a few lessons since Mubarak’s fall. A law passed in 2013 requires pre-approval from the Interior Ministry for any protest activity. That gave Sissi’s henchmen a green light to round up actual and suspected protesters as they have been doing since Thursday, arresting hundreds of suspected agitators and human rights activists on charges related to organizing today’s protests. (Notably, the pro-Sissi demonstrators have not been touched.) As each new anti-regime protest pops up today, security forces are there, arresting protesters and journalists and dispersing them with tear gas and rubber bullets. Regardless of the final outcome of today’s events, Sissi should pay attention to the growing dissatisfaction among the Egyptian people. 

The symbolism of holding today’s protests on Sinai Liberation Day is potent. Threats to Egypt’s nationalism and national sovereignty have long been key drivers of Egyptian rage, allowing the protest organizers to tap in to the anger and frustration shared by Egyptians across the political spectrum. The outrage citizens have expressed in the streets, online, and in the media should be a red flag to Sissi, who is hemorrhaging support. 

Notably, he’s now struck a nerve not just with Islamists or others in the anti-Sissi crowd, but with one of the few remaining bastions of Sissi supporters—the everyday Egyptians who are not normally politically engaged. This is a group of people who, following five years of political turmoil, see Sissi as Egypt’s best chance at stability in an increasingly unstable neighborhood. And they’re generally willing to forgive Sissi for his transgressions. They don’t believe the theory that the Egyptian security services are responsible for Italian PhD student Giulio Regeni’s death. They agree that foreign funding of NGOs is a form of Western meddling in Egyptian affairs. They justify the brutal crackdown on free expression in the name of security. But secretly concocting a deal to give away Egyptian land—that is one pill even they can’t swallow. 

Final straws?

Making matters worse are reports that Egypt consulted with Israel and the United States prior to the transfer. While the Israeli-Egyptian peace treaty remains active, Egypt and Israel’s peace is cold, at best. The notion that Sissi would consult with Israel over something that he kept secret from his own people is the ultimate insult and betrayal to many Egyptians. The facts behind the transfer matter very little. What matters is the perception of the Egyptian public that President Sissi has duped them. 

The decision to transfer the islands to Saudi Arabia may turn out to be the final nail in Sissi’s coffin. Over the past several months, he has lost other pillars of support—including secular revolutionaries, who saw former President Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood as subverting the revolution and supported the military’s return to power. The far-reaching and brutal crackdown on Egyptian journalists and NGOs turned many of them off from Sissi. And wealthy Egyptians, who believed Sissi’s promises to grow the economy and protect their assets, have increasingly questioned their leader as Egypt’s economy continues to plummet. 

Sissi is not only running out of supporters, he is also running out of excuses.

Sissi is not only running out of supporters, he is also running out of excuses. Rather than admit his mistakes, Sissi has defended his actions, shifting the blame and feeding conspiracy theories. While protests were growing across Egypt on April 15, Sissi spoke to a group of Egyptian youth, referencing a “hellish scheme” to destabilize Egypt from within. 

Unfortunately for Sissi, there is no such “scheme.” In 2011 it was not a Western plot, as some Egyptian conspiracy theories have suggested, that ousted Mubarak—it was the Egyptian people, fed up with actions Mubarak carried out as president. In 2013, the coup that ousted Morsi succeeded because the people were fed up with decisions he made in office to consolidate power and reject democratic reforms. Had either Mubarak or Morsi spent as much time responding to the wants and needs of their citizenry as they had quashing dissent, one of them might still be in office. Much like his predecessors, what Sissi fails to understand is that the thing most likely to destabilize his government is neither an external conspiracy not an internal scheme—it’s him. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify before you today on the need to improve retirement savings opportunities for employees of private sector small businesses and ways to structure such an effort.

I am David John, a Senior Strategic Policy Advisor in AARP’s Public Policy Institute, AARP’s internal think tank. In addition, I am a Deputy Director of the Retirement Security Project at the Brookings Institution. Before I joined AARP last year, I was a Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation for almost 15 years.

My testimony this afternoon will focus on three areas: first, that there is a very real and growing retirement security problem in the United States; second, that the existing products and efforts are not resolving this problem; and third, that there are some approaches that Oregon could take that are compatible with existing law and would help future retirees to have a more comfortable retirement. These proposed actions would also help both your state and the country as a whole avoid the high costs of doing nothing. Let me be clear from the start that simply talking about increased education is not enough. This is a problem that will require action to improve.

The Problem Facing Us

Oregon and our nation face a serious problem if a large proportion of our workforce remains unable to save for retirement through an employer-related payroll deduction plan. This situation affects both those approaching retirement and those who are just starting their careers. However, older workers may have much higher access to defined benefit plans, and thus be much better off than younger employees who will have nothing to rely upon other than savings and Social Security.

Social Security is the foundation of retirement security both here and nationwide. In Oregon alone, its benefits keep hundreds of thousands out of poverty, but for most people, Social Security’s average benefit level of about $1,300 a month[1] does not provide enough for a comfortable retirement. That is about $15,600 a year. Economic security requires both Social Security benefits and sufficient additional savings to supplement them.

The lack of savings—and the opportunity to save at work through payroll deduction—is where the problem lies. Various industry groups and columnists have claimed that all is well, and that there really is not a problem. However, on close examination, there are holes in their figures, and they often focus on today’s retirees and those close to retirement, people who are much more likely to have a traditional defined benefit pension plan than younger workers who need to be saving now will have.

Even then, the numbers are not pretty. National data from the non-partisan Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) show that in 2013, 51 percent of workers aged 45–54 had less than $25,000 in total savings and investments.[2] These are people between 10 and 20 years from retirement. Among workers aged 55 and above, those within 10 years of retirement, 43 percent had less than $25,000 in total savings and investments. These household savings numbers exclude home equity and defined benefit pensions (if any). Savings of that amount will not take an individual through one year of retirement, much less the 20 plus years that most healthy 65-year-olds are likely to experience.

Interestingly, the question in 2014 was revised to separate out those with access to an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan or pension and those without.[3] The answers showed once again the value of such a plan and the cost of not having one. About 62 percent of employees with access to a retirement saving plan through their employer had more than $25,000 saved, and 22 percent had $100,000 or more. However, 94 percent of those without access to such a plan had under $25,000 in total savings and investments, and only 3 percent had $100,000 or more.

Just to place these numbers in perspective, any amount of retirement savings is certainly better for a retiree than no retirement savings at all, but it takes a significant amount gradually built over a long period of time to build a significant level of financial security. Retirement savings of $100,000,[4] a sum that only 30 percent of the workers age 45–54 and only 42 percent of those age 55+ in the EBRI survey will equal or exceed, buys additional monthly income of $589 ($7,100 annually) for men at age 65 and $552 a month ($6,600 annually) for women at that age.[5] That would give men with $100,000 in retirement savings and average Social Security benefits a monthly retirement income of about $1,800 ($22,700 annually) and women with the same savings and Social Security benefits a monthly income of $1,750 ($22,200). Neither figure is likely to produce a comfortable retirement, and the EBRI data suggest that even that is out of reach for well over half of all Americans.

Admittedly, these are rough numbers, and many people will receive higher-than-average Social Security benefits. However, many other people will end up receiving much less than average. We know from other research that five groups are most likely to undersave: small business employees, lower-income individuals, women, younger workers, and members of minority groups. However, the problems are not limited to just these five groups. By the way, the recent column by Robert Samuelson[6] that repeats industry assurances that all is well cited the Investment Company Institute (ICI) as saying that the median value of IRA and 401(k) accounts held by people aged 55–64 is $100,000.[7] If that is true, then half of all those with such accounts would have annual retirement incomes equal to or less than the $22,000-plus level I just mentioned if they receive average Social Security benefits.

To make matters worse, when calculating the average amount in such accounts, researchers usually exclude those who have no account at all. In the case of the ICI data Samuelson cites, it appears that approximately 25 percent of households aged 55–64 did not have either a 401(k) or an IRA. They face an even worse future.

How can industry researchers present the existing retirement system as working very well? The answer is by using selective statistics. As an example, the EBRI study includes a question asking how many employees have saved for retirement.[8] The answer for 2013 is 66 percent of all workers and 74 percent of those aged 55 to 64. If one stopped there, the picture would look very good. It is only when one digs in deeper and asks how much they have saved that the true problem becomes evident. Similarly, other studies[9] that show no serious problem focus on today’s retirees, who had much more access to a traditional defined benefit pension than tomorrow’s retirees will. While many of today’s retirees are comfortable, their success does not imply that younger workers will automatically have the same future.

Access to Workplace Savings Is Essential

It is not that people do not want to save or cannot save. They do. The problem is often the lack of access to a convenient savings plan, and the inability to understand the many savings options that exist.

The existence of a workplace retirement savings plan is important. A recent Boston College Center for Retirement Research paper[10] found that access to a workplace retirement savings plan or pension is second only to having a job as the most important factor in assisting moderate- to low-income individuals to build retirement security. A wide variety of research shows that only about half of the U.S. workforce has the ability to save for retirement or has a pension at work. While there are a variety of data sources, each with its own strengths and weaknesses, another Boston College study[11] found that the coverage statistics are comparable between data sources when the same standards are applied. This included a study of IRS records[12] that appeared to show otherwise.

Regardless of the exact percentage point used to estimate coverage, the sad fact is that millions of Americans currently lack the ability to save for retirement at work through payroll deduction. This is especially true for small business employees. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) study[13] found that only about 14 percent (one in seven) of businesses with 100 or fewer employees offer their employees such a plan, and that between 51 percent and 71 percent of the roughly 42 million people who work for a small business lack the ability to save for retirement.

PPI research shows that about 642,000 Oregonians between the ages of 18 and 64—about 47.6 percent—are employed by a company that does not offer a pension or retirement savings plan.[14] The Oregon number is slightly better than the 51.1 percent national figure. That translates into 57 million Americans who are employed by the private sector and cannot save for retirement at work. These are not just younger employees who are new to the workforce. They include midcareer individuals who move from a large company that offered a retirement plan to a smaller company that does not. Often, these midcareer workers end up with a gap in their savings history that damages their ability to build economic security.

The Need for Better Coverage Is Widely Acknowledged

AARP is certainly not the only organization to recognize the need to increase the number of people able to save for retirement through a payroll deduction plan or account. Here, in Oregon, the Retirement in Reach Coalition[15] is a broad-based collection of business, professional, labor, and civic groups that have come together to help more Oregonians to save.

Nationally, a number of organizations, including many prominent research institutions, have written about the number of people who lack the ability to save for retirement and the need to improve coverage. Please note that these organizations do not necessarily support any specific solution or, indeed, any solution at all. However, all have written about either the need to expand coverage or how retirement security would be improved through greater coverage. As an example, Putnam Investments CEO Robert L. Reynolds has written about the need to improve the ability to save in a short paper titled “Three Steps that Could Shore up Retirement.”[16] The paper noted that “today—two years since the first boomers turned 65—the Employee Benefit Research Institute estimates that 49% of American workers are still ‘not confident at all’ or ‘not too confident’ about having enough money in retirement, 57% of pre-retirees have less than $25,000 saved for the future, and 32% of all workers do not have access to a retirement saving plan at work.”

The paper’s Step Two was: “Access to workplace savings for all workers. Any worker paying FICA taxes should have access to a retirement savings plan at work.”

Other organizations that have either issued papers or made statements about the number of people who lack an employer-sponsored retirement savings or pension plan include the following: the Brookings Institution’s Retirement Security Project,[17] the New America Foundation,[18] the Aspen Institute,[19] the U.S. Chamber of Commerce,[20] the Heritage Foundation,[21] and the Urban Institute.[22]

Again, this is not to imply that any of these organizations endorse any approach that Oregon might decide to take on retirement savings or that they support any part of my testimony. I mention them solely to show that concern about limited opportunities to save for retirement is widespread.

Those without an Employer-based Plan

In theory, everyone without an employer-based plan could save in an IRA, but EBRI research estimates that only about 1 out of 20 actually does so regularly.[23] In addition, payroll deduction is viewed as very important for encouraging retirement savings by people at every income level[24]. Overall, 61.5 percent of those surveyed in the EBRI 2011 Retirement Confidence Survey said that payroll deduction was very important for encouraging them to save for retirement, and another 27.8 percent said that it was somewhat important. Together, 89.3 percent said that it was either very or somewhat important. Further, the survey also found that a significant number of those currently saving would either stop or reduce their saving if payroll deduction was not available. It is much easier for people to save regularly if their savings are deducted from their paycheck before they receive it. Otherwise, the press of immediate bills tends to crowd out savings for longer-term goals.

Another factor in the extremely low savings rate among those who can use only an IRA is availability and trust. Especially in low-income neighborhoods, there are often no financial institutions nearby other than check-cashing outlets. Low-income individuals are often reluctant to go to financial outlets in other areas as they may feel that they are not welcome or that they will be treated poorly. Another drawback that applies to individuals of all income levels is the fear that they will be taken advantage of. Because financial professionals will know much more about the subject than their potential customers and may use unfamiliar terms, people have a very real fear that they will be talked into something that benefits the financier rather than the saver.

In addition, behavioral research shows that when people are faced with an important decision where they are uncertain what to do, they do nothing. This inertia factor is especially present in financial decisions like retirement savings.

These are reasons why an approach that focuses solely on additional education is extremely unlikely to succeed. Such an approach does nothing to increase the number of local financial outlets or opportunities to save. In addition, such financial literacy training often uses the same complex terms that potential savers find confusing. There is a value to training, but only in addition to expanded access to retirement savings.

On the other hand, when employees are presented with a plan at work that is structured in a way that provides guidance, they take the opportunity to save. This is true at all income levels. The Boston College study on why lower-income people are less likely to save that I mentioned earlier[25] showed very similar take-up rates between income levels. Eighty-six percent of those with incomes under 300 percent of the poverty line participated in a retirement savings system or pension if they were offered one and were eligible, compared to 95 percent of those with higher incomes.

Existing Products Are Not the Solution

Opponents of a state-sponsored retirement savings effort often cite the number and kind of existing products that are currently available to small businesses. A joint IRS/U.S. Department of Labor publication[26] lists seven types of retirement savings plans that are currently available. Unfortunately, most of them are both expensive and complicated or require the employer to make a contribution. Only one that is not widely available really enables small businesses to offer their employees an opportunity to save without saddling them with high costs or requiring savings.

Both the traditional 401(k) and the automatic enrollment 401(k) are excellent solutions for employers who are willing to offer them. However, the GAO found[27] that smaller employers can pay much higher administrative costs than those paid by larger employers. In addition, they can be complicated and require employers to play a more active role than many are willing to do.

Three other plans, the SEP IRA, the SIMPLE IRA, and the safe harbor 401(k), are either totally financed by employer contributions or require employers to make contributions. In addition, another of the seven options—a profit-sharing plan—is both completely financed with employer contributions and doesn’t require regular funding. While this plan does allow for profit sharing in good years, it does not necessarily include regular contributions that an individual can use to finance a retirement income.

The seventh type of retirement savings account available to small businesses is the payroll deduction IRA. It does not require (or allow) any employer contribution, or saddle the employer with complex regulatory burdens or impose significant costs. All the employer has to do is make it available to employees, deduct the contributions from their paychecks, and then send it to the financial provider. Unfortunately, it is not widely available or sold, as it offers financial services companies only limited income potential. Oregon can help to change that situation.

Another type of retirement savings tool, MyRA, was announced in President Obama’s January State of the Union speech. MyRA has some very positive features,[28] but it is not a solution or a substitute for anything Oregon might decide to do to help more people to save for retirement. A key weakness is that an individual can only have a maximum of $30,000 in MyRA. That is not nearly enough for any appreciable improvement in financial security. Second, MyRA savings will be deposited only in government bonds. While that investment is completely safe, it does not allow any real investment growth. An individual with just a MyRA is likely to get little more than the inflation-adjusted amount they contributed.

Why Oregon Should Be Concerned about This Problem

This is a state problem because doing nothing will mean higher state and local taxes for your children and grandchildren. Low-income retirees will need state and local services financed by state and local taxes for health care, housing, senior centers, and a host of other services. As Oregon ages and the baby boomers retire, the demand from this population for additional state government services will only grow. However, there is a simple, low-cost alternative to taxpayer-funded government services.

What Oregon Can Do to Help

The statute that created the Oregon Retirement Savings Task Force includes the limitation that you cannot recommend anything that might be contrary to the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Some would have you believe that this limits you to proposing additional employee education. This is not the case.

While ERISA as it is currently written does limit Oregon’s options, there are still avenues open to the state that would help to directly increase the number of Oregonians who can save for retirement at work. Oregon could still sponsor a payroll deduction IRA[29] that could be available at low cost to every resident of the state who is not currently covered by another retirement savings or pension plan. Such an account could be available through either state-managed investments or one or more private sector providers chosen and monitored by a state agency.

The state, the employer, or any private sector provider would not be responsible for the performance of the savings, and there would be no promised retirement benefits. All of the savings would come from and be owned exclusively by the individual saver. It would be up to the saver to monitor his or her eligibility and compliance with contributions rules. The small costs of such a program could be paid out of fees assessed on the accounts, or the start-up costs could be subsidized by the state.

A key fact is that the only liability faced by the employer would be to collect and forward individual contributions to the provider or agency on a timely basis. In theory, such contributions could be forwarded using the same schedule as the state currently uses to collect its income tax revenues. Federal law limits the role of the employer to encourage its employees to save for retirement through providing general information about the payroll deduction IRA program. The employer is also allowed to answer any questions about the program or to refer them to the IRA provider and provide any informational materials written by the IRA provider, as long as no endorsement by the employer is provided. At all times, the employer must remain neutral about the provider.

This is not a perfect plan, and it does not include features that many who support increased access to retirement savings would like to see. However, we believe that such a plan would be legal and, if combined with an educational program, could increase retirement savings among Oregonians. As federal law either changes or is reinterpreted, additional features and services could be added. This would be a starting place, not a final destination.

Automatic Enrollment

At this point, any Oregon plan would probably not require the use of automatic enrollment. However, as both state and federal law evolve, it would be helpful to explore encouraging that feature in any retirement savings plan. Under automatic enrollment, an employee continues to have total control over his or her retirement savings decisions, but unless the employee decides otherwise, he or she is enrolled and saves a set percentage of income in a specific investment choice. Automatic enrollment uses behavioral economics to make inertia work for the employee. These features work. The five groups mentioned earlier that are most likely to undersave (women, younger employees, small business employees, lower-income employees, and minority groups) all see their participation rates climb from very low levels to close to 90 percent.

And employees like automatic enrollment. A 2007 survey[30] of automatically enrolled workers showed that 95 percent found that it made saving easy. Eighty-five percent started to save earlier than they would have without it. Almost all of the employees who were automatically enrolled and remained in the plan said that they were satisfied with the process (97 percent) and were glad their company offered automatic enrollment (98 percent). Even those who were automatically enrolled and decided not to save liked the feature, with 90 percent being satisfied with the process and 79 percent being glad their company offered automatic enrollment.

Conclusion

Again, thank you for allowing me to testify today. Improving the ability to save for retirement through the increased availability of payroll deduction savings would address a real need both here in Oregon and nationwide. From a policy standpoint, an active program that increases the access that small business employees have to payroll deduction retirement savings plans would help the nearly 650,000 Oregonians who don’t currently have such an opportunity. It would enable them to build economic security through their own efforts.

BEST PRACTICES:

• A universally available payroll deduction IRA that is available to any Oregonian who currently lacks an employer-provided retirement savings or pension plan.
• A very short list of available investments that includes both a stable value fund and a balanced or target date fund. New savers would go into a previously designated investment unless they chose otherwise. Savers wishing other investments would be able to find other IRA accounts.
• Regular statements that clearly indicate investments, earnings, fees, and account balance. A number indicating the monthly retirement income that such a plan could produce if the current amount is saved would be very helpful.
• A coordinated statewide education program that explains the accounts and how to use them as well as the value of saving for retirement.
• Financial literacy classes in every school.

Editor’s Note: This blog post is one in a series of posts in which guest bloggers respond to the Brookings paper, “The potential and limitations of impact bonds: Lessons from the first five years of experience worldwide.”

Social impact bonds (SIBs) are one of a number of new “Payment by Results” financing mechanisms available for social services. In a SIB, private investors provide upfront capital for a social service, and government pays investors based on the outcomes of the service. If the intervention does not achieve outcomes, the government does not pay investors at all. The provision of upfront capital differentiates SIBs from other Payment by Results contracts.

Development Impact Bonds (DIBs) are a variation of SIBs, where the outcome funder is a third party, such as a foundation or development assistance agency, rather than the government. To date, 47 SIBs and one DIB have been implemented in the sectors of social welfare (21), employment (17), criminal recidivism (4), education (4), and health (2).

In a recent Brookings study, drawing from interviews with stakeholders in each of the 38 SIBs contracted as of March 1, 2015, we evaluate 10 common claims of the impact bond literature to date, so far made up of published thought-pieces and interview-based reports.

Figure 1. Common claims about Social Impact Bonds

Source:  The Potential and Limitations of Impact Bonds: Lessons Learned from the First Five Years of Experience Worldwide, Brookings Institution, 2015.

Of the 10 common claims about impact bonds, we found five areas where the SIB mechanism had a demonstrable positive effect on service provision:

1. Focus on outcomes. We found a significant shift in the focus of both government and service providers when it came to contracting and providing social services. Outcomes became the primary consideration in these contracts in which the repayment of the investment depended on achievement of those outcomes. Given that outcomes are the pivotal and defining piece of a SIB contract, it is unsurprising that many of those interviewed in the course of our research emphasized their importance, though we did find that this represented a more significant transformation in culture than expected.
2. Build a culture of monitoring and evaluation. The outcome-based contract necessitates the collection of data on outcomes, which helps build a culture of monitoring and evaluation in provider organizations and government. We found that the SIB is beginning to help solve longstanding problems in systemic data collection in multiple instances. In turn, government evaluation of outcomes and obligation to pay only for successful outcomes provides transparency and value for taxpayers. However, it is too soon to tell whether the monitoring and evaluation systems will remain in place after the SIB contracts conclude.
3. Drive performance management. The involvement of the investors and intermediaries in management of the service performance is a key component of SIBs. These private sector organizations often have stronger background in performance management and bring a valuable perspective to the social service sector. However, on average we find limited evidence that the service providers in SIBs to date have been able to significantly adjust their programs mid-contract in the case of poor outcomes, despite SIB proponents claiming this is one of the mechanism’s greatest merits.
4. Foster collaboration. In addition to collaboration between the for-profit, nonprofit, and government sectors, we also find evidence of gridlock-breaking collaboration across government agencies, levels of government, and political parties due to SIB contracts. This was noted to be one of the most important aspects of SIBs but also one of the most challenging.
5. Invest in prevention. External, upfront capital for services allows government to invest in preventive programs that greatly reduce spending in the future, such as early childhood development programs that reduce remedial education, crime, and unemployment. We found that all but one of the 38 SIBs were issued for preventive programs. Going forward, SIBs will not necessarily need to be tied to cash savings for government, but could simply be used as a method to finance programs that achieve desired social outcomes. 

Where do SIBs currently fall short?

For the five remaining claims about SIBs, we found less evidence of impact.

1.  Achieve scale. Of the 38 impact bonds contracted as of March 1, 2015, 25 served less than 1,000 beneficiaries. The largest impact bond, the SIB to reduce criminal recidivism at Rikers Island Prison in New York City, aimed to reach up to 10,000 individuals, but was terminated a year early this July because it did not meet target outcomes. The smallest SIB supports 22 homeless children and their mothers in the city of Saskatoon in Canada. These numbers are nowhere near the scale of the toughest problems facing the globe, where, for example, 59 million children are out of school. However, since March of 2015, two larger SIBs have been contracted, which may be an indication of increasing confidence in the mechanism. The Ways to Wellness SIB in the U.K. aims to improve long-term health conditions of over 11,000 beneficiaries and the first DIB launched plans to improve enrollment and learning outcomes of nearly 20,000 schoolchildren in Rajasthan, India. Further, the impact bond fund model used in the U.K. for 21 SIBs—where teams of service providers, intermediaries, and investors bid for SIB contracts based on a rate card of maximum payments per outcome government is willing to make—could be used to reach greater scale by contracting multiple SIBs at once. The largest of the impact bond funds, the Innovation Fund, reaches over 16,000 beneficiaries across 10 SIBs.
2. Foster innovation in delivery, and 
3. Reduce risk for government. SIBs vary in the degree of innovation and risk to investors—SIBs based on more innovative programs pose a greater risk to investors and may have higher investment protection or greater potential returns to balance the risk. In our study we found that very few of the programs financed by SIBs were truly innovative in that they had never been tested before, but that many were innovative in that they applied interventions in new settings or in new combinations. The literature claims that SIBs reduce the risk to government of funding an innovative service (government pays nothing if outcomes aren’t achieved), but as of March of this year it did not seem that the programs were particularly risky. The SIB in Rikers Island Prison was one of the most innovative and risky, and the early termination of the deal was an important demonstration of the reduction in risk for government. The New York City Department of Correction did not pay anything in this case; instead the investor and foundation backing the investment paid for the program.
4. Crowd-in private funding. Our research also shows mixed evidence on the power of impact bonds to crowd-in private funding, the fourth claim with unclear results. The literature up until now has claimed that impact bonds crowd-in private funding for social services by increasing the amount of money from traditional funding sources and bringing in new money from nontraditional sources. There is some evidence that traditional service funders, such as foundations, are increasing their contributions because of the opportunity to earn back what would otherwise have been a donation. Many of the current investors in impact bonds, Goldman Sachs for example, are indeed new actors in the space and their increased awareness of social service provision may be a benefit in and of itself. However, if a program is successful, government ultimately pays for the program. In this case, investors are solving a liquidity problem for government by providing upfront capital and not actually providing new money. Nonetheless, there is some evidence that paying only for proven outcomes has motivated the public sector to spend more on social services and that the external upfront capital has allowed government to shift spending from curative to preventive programs. Further, most programs thus far have been designed such that savings to the public sector are greater than payments to investors, resulting in a net increase in available public sector funds.
5. Sustain impact. Finally, five years since the first impact bond, we have yet to see whether impact bonds will lead to sustained impact on the lives of beneficiaries beyond the impact bond contract duration. The existing literature states that impact bonds could lead to sustained impact by demonstrating to government that a sector or intervention type is worth funding or by improving the quality of programs by instilling a culture of outcome achievement, monitoring, and evaluation. However, the success of impact bonds depends on whether new efforts to streamline the contract development stage come to fruition and whether incentives for all parties are closely scrutinized.

The optimal financing mechanism for a social service will differ across issue area and local context, and we look forward to conducting more research in the field on the suitable characteristics for each tool.

Twenty-five years ago, in March 1991, shaken by the fall of the Berlin Wall and the rise of nationalist-separatist movements in the Soviet Baltic and Caucasus republics, Mikhail Gorbachev held a historic referendum. He proposed the creation of a new union treaty to save the USSR. The gambit failed. Although a majority of the Soviet population voted yes, some key republics refused to participate. And so began the dissolution of the USSR, the event that current Russian President Vladimir Putin has called the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the 20th century.

Today, in the wake of the referendum on leaving the European Union, British Prime Minister David Cameron seems to have put the United Kingdom on a similar, potentially catastrophic, path. Like the fall of the wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fallout from Brexit could have momentous consequences. The U.K. is of course not the USSR, but there are historic links between Britain and Russia and structural parallels that are worth bearing in mind as the U.K. and the EU work out their divorce, and British leaders figure out what to do next, domestically and internationally.

A quick Russian history recap

The British and Russian empires formed at around the same time and frequently interacted. Queen Elizabeth I was pen pals with Ivan the Terrible. The union of the Scottish and English parliaments in 1707 that set the United Kingdom on its imperial trajectory coincided with the 1709 battle of Poltava, in which Peter the Great ousted the Swedes from the lands of modern Ukraine and began the consolidation of the Russian empire. The Russian imperial and British royal families intermarried, even as they jockeyed for influence in Central Asia and Afghanistan in the 19th century. The last Czar and his wife were respectively a distant cousin and granddaughter of British Queen Victoria. The Irish Easter Uprising and the Russian Revolution were both sparked by problems at home, imperial overstretch, and the shock of the World War I. 

Like the fall of the wall and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the fallout from Brexit could have momentous consequences.

Since the end of the Cold War, the U.K. and Russia have both had difficulty figuring out their post-imperial identities and roles. The U.K. in 2016 looks structurally a lot like the USSR in 1991, and England’s current identity crisis is reminiscent of Russia’s in the 1990s. After Gorbachev’s referendum failed to shore up the union, the Soviet Union was undermined by an attempted coup (in August 1991) and then dismantled by its national elites. In early December 1991, Boris Yeltsin, the flamboyant head of the Russian Federation, holed up in a hut deep in the Belarusian woods with the leaders of Ukraine and Belarus and conspired to replace the USSR with a new Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS). With Gorbachev and the Soviet Union gone by the end of December, the hangover set in. Boris Yeltsin was the first to rue the consequences of his actions. The CIS never gained traction as the basis for a new union led by Russia. 

The Ukrainians, Belarussians, and everyone else gained new states and new identities and used the CIS as a mechanism for divorce. Russians lost an empire, their geopolitical anchor, and their identity as the first among equals in the USSR. The Russian Federation was a rump state. And although ethnic Russians were 80 percent of the population, the forces of disintegration continued. Tatars, Chechens, and other indigenous peoples of the Russian Federation, with their own histories, seized or agitated for independence. Ethnic Russians were “left behind” in other republics. Historic territories were lost. Instead of presiding over a period of Russian independence, Boris Yeltsin muddled through a decade of economic collapse and political humiliation.

Separating the U.K. from Europe...could be as wrenching as pulling apart the USSR.

Is Britain laying the same trap?

Another Boris, the U.K.’s Boris Johnson, the former mayor of London and main political opponent of David Cameron, risks doing the same if he becomes U.K. prime minister in the next few months. Separating the U.K. from Europe institutionally, politically, and economically could be as wrenching as pulling apart the USSR. People will be left behind—EU citizens in the U.K., U.K. citizens in the EU––and will have to make hard choices about who they are, and where they want to live and work. The British pound has already plummeted. The prognoses for short- to medium-term economic dislocation have ranged from gloomy to dire. The U.K is a multi-ethnic state, with degrees of devolved power to its constituent parts, and deep political divides at the elite and popular levels. Scotland and Northern Ireland, along with Gibraltar (a contested territory with Spain), clearly voted to stay in the European Union. The prospect of a new Scottish referendum on independence, questions about the fate of the Irish peace process, and the format for continuing Gibraltar’s relationship with Spain, will all complicate the EU-U.K. divorce proceedings. 

Like Russia and the Russians, England and the English are in the throes of an identity crisis.

Like Russia and the Russians, England and the English are in the throes of an identity crisis. England is not ethnically homogeneous. In addition to hundreds of thousands of Irish citizens living in England, there are many more English people with Irish as well as Scottish ancestry––David Cameron’s name gives away his Scottish antecedents––as well as those with origins in the colonies of the old British empire. And there are the EU citizens who have drawn so much ire in the Brexit debate. 

As in the case of the USSR and Russia where all roads led (and still lead) to Moscow, London dominates the U.K.’s population, politics, and economics. London is a global city that is as much a magnet for international migration as a center of finance and business. London voted to remain in Europe. The rest of England, London’s far flung, neglected, and resentful hinterland, voted to leave the EU—and perhaps also to leave London. At the end of the divorce process, without careful attention from politicians in London, England could find itself the rump successor state to the United Kingdom. If so, another great imperial state will have consigned itself to the “dust heap of history” by tying its future to a referendum.