Successful and prestigious financial firm has an immediate need for an Administrative Assistant. We are looking for a resourceful candidate who demonstrates a high level of initiative, posses excellent time management skills, meticulous attention to detail and who enjoys working in a fast paced environment.

Duties/Responsibilities:
Act as a liaison on behalf of two successful agents
Coordinate travel arrangements
Meeting preparation and facilitating conference calls
Manage and update extensive contact database
Assist producer with quotes, packaging and submissions of new business
Handles all aspects of underwriting
Handling account changes, questions and problem solving
Takes initiative with newly assigned tasks
Other jobs assigned by management

Job Requirements:
Life & Disability license is a plus
Minimum 2-3 years of experience supporting a senior level executive
Knowledge and understanding of life and disability insurance is a plus
Discretion and excellent judgment to handle confidential materials
Strong work ethic and a positive, “can do” attitude
Ability to establish a rapport with clients, management and staff
Meticulous organizational skills and outstanding attention to detail
Able to work independently with little supervision
Advanced proficiency in all Microsoft Office applications
Bachelor’s degree is preferred

Compensation:
Negotiable, depends on experience

Please email me a brief description of your personality, how you can add value to our company, and what differentiates you from the other candidates?

info@brysonfinancial.com

June 27, 2011

The compelling news in Washington right now is what will be done about the need to raise the debt ceiling—most lawmakers (both parties) want to combine a debt ceiling increase with a deficit-reduction/debt management package.

Negotiations on that package blew up last Thursday, when the two Republicans (Rep. Eric Cantor (R-VA) and Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said the group was at an impasse over taxes and declined to attend any further meetings—at least until President Obama himself reaches agreement on whether to include taxes with Cong’l leadership (Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH) & Senate Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)).

Right now, both sides (GOP and Dems) are dug in, each thinking that ultimately the other will “have to” give in. Republicans are insisting on no taxes in the deficit reduction package; Democrats are equally insistent that the package include at least some new revenue. Each side is “reading the polls” and thinking their viewpoint will prevail.

Democrats seem to be insisting on around $400 billion in new revenue. They have offered some ideas on where to get it. The ideas reportedly include:

• Elimination of the R&D tax credit
• Oil & gas tax rules
• Ethanol tax credit elimination
• Manufacturing tax credits
• Carried interest
• Corporate jet tax rules
• A phase-out of deductions available to people whose AGI exceeds $500,000

And while the GOP is generally insistent on no new revenue in a package there are two tax rules that some insiders think might be acceptable to the Republicans—repatriation (tax breaks for income earned and held abroad brought back to the U.S.) and the ethanol tax credit (the Senate voted to eliminate ethanol tax credits last week, and already some of the most conservative Republicans in the House—e.g., Rep. Mike Pence (R-IN) are saying publicly that they think Congress should at least look at the provisions. Most Republicans, however, say that any new tax revenues (from base-broadening) should be done only in the context of tax reform that lowers rates.

Inflation Measurement Change: There is also an “insider” proposal on the table—changing how inflation adjustments are triggered and measured. Generally, the proposal contemplates a change in how inflation adjustments that are currently built into law are triggered and measured. Most discussed is a proposal that would peg inflation adjustments to a “chain CPI” mechanism.

This could raise considerable revenue – possibly as much as $80 billion over 10 years. A change in how to calculate inflation adjustments would affect many rules, including, for example, limits on annual contributions to retirement savings (pensions & IRAs), HSA and FSA contributions, the personal exemption, Social Security benefits adjusted for inflation, etc.

Other Elements in the Package: Prior to its dissolution, the Biden Group had tentatively agreed to reduce the deficit by at least as much as it increased in the debt limit—i.e., if the debt limit were to be raised by $2.4 trillion, deficit reduction would have to at least equal that. Insiders reported that the group had made progress on agreeing to possibly as much as $2 trillion in spending cuts. However, some of the spending cuts were to entitlements (principally Medicaid and Medicare) and Democrats say they won’t agree to those without revenues (taxes) being part of the mix. Plus, there was continuing disagreement over how much and how to cut defense spending. So the “real” tentative spending agreement is more like $1 trillion.

Also in play are “process reforms”—a trigger to automatically cut spending (and—still subject to much controversy—raise revenues) if Congress didn’t enact legislation to meet deficit reduction targets. There is also a strong sense that a final agreement has to include some kind of Constitutional amendment to require a balanced budget. Still unclear is whether such an amendment would garner the necessary 2/3 vote to pass Congress (or win the necessary ratification by 3/4 of the States). Exact details of the amendment are also still fluid. But it does appear that an agreement could include a Constitutional amendment requiring a balanced budget.

Next Steps: President Obama has separate meetings scheduled this week with Sen. McConnell and with Majority Leader Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV). He has already begun meeting with Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), and with House Democrats.

Prospects: There is both considerable worry and considerable optimism. While it is true that a large number of lawmakers (best guess is about 30-35 House Republicans and maybe 10 or so Senate Republicans) don’t believe that the August 2 “drop dead” date for an increase in the debt limit is “real” and/or that a default by the U.S. on its debt would cause economic catastrophe, most lawmakers do at least fear that result, and mostly believe it is possible. So, folks on the Hill still think that one way or another, Congress will pass a debt limit increase, along with some kind of deficit reduction/debt management package.

But there’s growing worry that it’s taking too long, and that because each side shows little willingness to compromise on the tax issue, there won’t be a resolution until just before the deadline, or perhaps after a short-term default. This is causing substantial concern that the markets “will punish” what they view as an incompetent process—that the markets will go into free fall due to fear that lawmakers will allow the U.S. to default.

Tax Reform: All of this is adding fuel to the tax reform “fire” – but does not seem to be accelerating its pace. It’s still more likely than not that a real tax reform proposal will not emerge until much later this year, or next year. But both House and Senate tax writing committees continue their long series of hearings on tax reform concepts—there’s still no sign of a move to “sector specific” hearings, although the tax writers say such specific-issue hearings will occur before a tax reform plan is developed. Such sector-specific hearings look like they won’t occur until after the August recess.

DOL: The latest key lawmaker to encourage DOL to pull back on its fiduciary definition proposal is Sen. Ben Cardin (D-MD), of Portman-Cardin pension reform fame. He is planning a letter to EBSA head Phyllis Borzi. The pressure on DOL continues to grow. Also, DOL says it expects its pension service provider disclosure regulations (408(b)(2) regs) to be finalized in time for a January 1, 2012 effective date.

Last week, in between the current “scandals” (Rep. Weiner’s internet pictures & presidential candidate Newt Gingrich’s campaign staff resignations), official Washington focused yet more on deficit reduction, debt management, and dealing with the debt ceiling. The House was out on recess; the Senate rejected an effort to delay the scheduled decrease in allowable debit card swipe fees. And the groups working on deficit reduction rather dramatically increased the pace at which they’re working.

The Biden Group: The bipartisan group of seven (VP Biden, Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Inouye (D-HI) & Kyl (R-AZ); Reps. Clyburn (D-SC), Van Hollen (D-MD) and Cantor (R-VA)) continue to keep close the details of their discussions—but did announce that they will start meeting at least three times per week, with a target deadline of July 4 for reaching an agreement. They’re shooting for deficit reduction of $4 trillion or more. They are looking at an enforcement mechanism that will trigger automatic changes if deficits hit more than 18 percent (or so) of gross domestic product (GDP).  They are also looking for discretionary and entitlement spending savings while they continue their discussion about what (if any) new taxes to include in their plan (that discussion also includes debate over whether taxes will be included in the enforcement mechanism they recommend).

The Senate’s “Gang of Six/Five—or Five Guys”: Also still at work is the bipartisan group of Senators—Democrats Warner (VA), Conrad (ND) & Durbin (IL) and Republicans Chambliss (GA), Crapo (ID) and (now gone but talking about returning) Coburn (OK). They’re shooting for up to $6 trillion ($4.7 trillion in savings plus another $1.3 trillion in improvement due to growth) over 10 years. They have announced no deadline, but have briefed a group of around 15-20 other interested Senators on the concepts (no details) of what they’re discussing.

Both groups have apparently decided they cannot recommend changes in tax rates, but both are discussing “tax savings” (changes to tax expenditures). In public, GOP lawmakers continue to say any new taxes are unacceptable, while Democrats insist taxes must be part of the mix. There does seem to be, however, a noticeable “disconnect” between what lawmakers are saying in public and what they’re discussing behind closed doors.

It’s possible that the Biden Group will offer a plan that gets fairly specific—although it is also possible they will, like the Senate “gang,” recommend only target numbers (e.g., it’s looking like the Senate “gang” will suggest that the Finance Committee prepare legislation that would raise an additional $1 to $1.5 trillion (over 10 years) from “trims” to tax expenditures—but will stay silent on which tax expenditures and/or how to trim them).

Either way, we’re gearing up for the beginning of a “real” tax bill after Independence Day. While there does appear to be a “real deadline” of early August (August 2—the date after which Treasury cannot keep the government operating and the bills paid without an increase in the debt limit), it is unlikely an actual tax bill will be on the table for debate by then. Realistically, it looks like post-August recess (after Labor Day) before we see specific tax proposals.

In other news, the pressure on DOL to modify (and resubmit for new comment) their proposed new definition of fiduciary continues. There is also pressure on the SEC relative to their work on a fiduciary rule for all financial planners. Also, the IRS announced it would extend the deadline for reporting requirements regarding medical loss ratios by another year. And there’s a new study out (McKinsey & Co) that finds that some 30 percent of all employers will drop their employer-sponsored health insurance once the employer responsibility rules kick in, in 2014.  The government had estimated that only about seven percent of employers would drop coverage after the new rules take effect. This study, if it’s taken seriously, could put even more pressure on Congress to review (and possibly change) key provisions of PPACA.

The “hopscotch” Congressional schedule continues…the Senate was out (actually, in pro forma session to prevent a recess appointment of controversial Elizabeth Warren to head the CFPB-Consumer Financial Protection Bureau) and the House was in. This upcoming week, the Senate is in, but the House is out on recess.

However, despite the House’s in-district work period, some bicameral work is expected. For example, the “Biden Group” working on a deficit reduction plan is scheduled to meet June 9. That group includes three key House members (Reps. Jim Clyburn (D-SC), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) and Eric Cantor (R-VA)) as well as three Senators (Kyl (R-AZ), Inouye (D-HI) and Baucus (D-MT)). They will look at specific spending cuts, entitlement (Medicare/Medicaid) reforms, a “deficit cap” and enforcement mechanism, and they will continue to explore whether (and if so to what extent) “tax spending” might be part of the mix.

Last week the House vote on a “message” debt ceiling increase bill that did not have an accompanying deficit reduction-debt management plan attached to it. Only 97 Democrats supported the “clean” increase in the debt limit, signaling an absolute need for some kind of deficit reduction to go with the needed increase in federal borrowing authority.

The “fault lines” of this debate remain unchanged: Democrats are insisting that new revenues have to be part of the deficit reduction mix. Republicans are adamantly opposed to new taxes—they say it must be spending cuts only. In public, there’s no compromise in sight. In private, staffers working for the Biden Group members say it’s very hard to see the path through that divide—but suggest possibly looking at “tax spending”—i.e., changes in the tax code that can be characterized as “spending cuts” by way of reducing tax deductions, credits, exclusions and/or deferrals. But so far, they report they have not zeroed in on specifics—they are just discussing the concept. Both sides agree on the need to include entitlement (Medicare & Medicaid) savings, but they don’t agree on how to achieve those savings.

“Back room” negotiations are producing some progress, those “inside” say. But public statements show no narrowing of the differences. The “political theatre” prompted Moody’s last week to issue a statement saying that absent (public) progress “this month” on getting the deficit under control and the debt ceiling raised, they will look at downgrading the U.S.’ AAA credit rating.

All of this is a backdrop to bad economic news towards the end of last week that shows the economic recovery sputtering growth (but not failure to grow), and an uptick in unemployment and anemic jobs growth. The tanking markets of last week could help get lawmakers to a breakthrough in the foreseeable future, but no one on the Hill thinks that will happen this upcoming week. It’s still some time away.

Speaker of the House Rep. John Boehner (R-OH) said maybe it’s time for him to negotiate directly with President Obama. The President says he’s willing to talk to Speaker Boehner, but says he has confidence in the (private) progress the Biden Group is making.

And of course pure election level politics is playing a huge role, too—the Democrats’ win in the NY-26 special election has House Democrats feeling “empowered” over their chances of re-winning control of the House in 2012 and has lessened the “gloom” over prospects for Democratic loss of control of the Senate.

In short, we’re in a “holding pattern”—public rhetoric does not, seemingly, reflect private progress. But there’s no real chance for “private progress” to become public any time soon.

On tax reform, key Hill staffers say their hearings will shift from concepts and policy to “sector specifics” very soon. Finance Committee staff tells us there has yet not been a decision made as to whether to hold a separate hearing on insurance, or whether instead to combine insurance issues with retirement savings issues in just one hearing. There’s no date yet—not even speculative. But based on their planning, our industry-specific hearing may come up prior to Labor Day.

House-side, Ways & Means made mention of the first specifics of tax reform: they are considering “trading” expiration of the R&D tax credit and section 199 manufacturing credit for corporate rate reduction. Insiders think this is a “trial balloon” to see if affected industries will “go to the mat” to defend R&D and/or section 199. Initial reaction is likely to surface this upcoming week and while it doesn’t directly affect insurance interests, it will be a harbinger of what kind of debate to expect when our issues come up for discussion. It will be a precursor of how strong rate reduction will be as a driver of tax reform.

Congress’ return from recess was highlighted by reaction to the news that the U.S. had found and killed Osama bin Laden—an event that put the partisanship and looming budget fights if not on the back burner, at least “behind” this remarkable achievement in terms of lawmakers (and voters) attention!

Budget: But, the respite from the “budget battles” was short-lived—the divisive issues have already begun to shove their way to the top of the list of things on which Congress is training its attention. Things are still very fluid, and a path to resolution is still elusive. But here’s what’s happening now.

There are three separate budget initiatives currently underway—each very much “driven” by the fact that the U.S. will hit its statutory debt limit (the amount beyond which the government cannot borrow) by between mid-May and early August (depending on the extent to which Treasury can reallocate funds and obligations – sort of a “playing the float on steroids” set of exercises). A large number of lawmakers continue to insist that they will not vote to increase the debt limit (currently set at about $4.3 trillion—government borrowing was, as of Friday, at $14.2 trillion) without an enforceable plan to manage the federal deficit and debt. Another large number of lawmakers say the debt limit affects past—not future—obligations and therefore the limit must be raised, and the effort to do so should not be tied to debt/deficit reduction. Everyone acknowledges that the stakes are very high—the consequences of a U.S. default on its existing debt obligations have been described as “catastrophic” by virtually every economist commenting on the issue.

So, everyone agrees this is a crucial issue. But that’s where the agreement stops. There’s no real indication of a potential mechanism for solving the problem.

Here are the three initiatives currently in the works:

· The Senate Budget Committee: The Senate Budget Committee will likely begin to craft its version of a fiscal year 2012 budget this week. Currently, it appears the committee will start with a plan offered by the committee’s chairman, Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND). The Conrad plan (which is subject to change even before he lays it before the committee) calls for tax reform, and Sen. Conrad is currently actively seeking authority to make tax reform a statutory requirement rather than a non-binding recommendation.

Whether he can do so is an open question—insiders think it is unlikely (virtually no one thinks Congress can tackle fundamental tax reform “for real” until after the November 2012 elections), but Sen. Conrad’s effort to do so is a significant development.

The current Conrad plan is based on the Deficit Reduction Commission plan (although it does not include Social Security). And while it may “require” the tax-writing committees to craft a tax reform bill, it will not dictate what will be in that bill. That will be up to the Finance Committee. So we could be looking at an acceleration of tax reform legislative activity. Odds are against it happening this year, but the potential for it cannot be ruled out.

The overall deficit reduction target in the Conrad plan is $4 trillion over 10 years—and that includes considerable spending cuts as well as revenue increases through taxes (including tax reform).

· Gang of Six: The six Senators (3 Democrats and 3 Republicans—Senators Warner (D-VA), Conrad (D-ND), Durbin (D-IL), Chambliss (R-GA), Coburn (R-OK), and Crapo (R-ID)) in the gang are working on a bipartisan deficit reduction plan to reduce the deficit by $4 trillion over 10 years. The Gang plan is also likely to include a call for tax reform, with some as yet unspecified amount of new revenue to be raised from it to allocate to deficit reduction. Currently, the Gang is stymied—one of its key members (Sen. Coburn) is unavailable due to a family emergency. Whether the Gang plan can be finalized at all, or in time for a Budget Committee mark-up, is currently in doubt.

· Biden Group: President Obama called for bipartisan deficit reduction talks among lawmakers appointed by House and Senate leadership. This group is led by VP Joe Biden. The group includes Senators Baucus (D-MT), Inouye (D-HI), and Kyl (R-AZ); and Representatives Clyburn (D-SC), Van Hollen (D-MD), and Cantor (R-VA). They met last week and reported “progress” although no specifics were agreed to. House leadership says new taxes are “off the table and non-negotiable.” However, many Republicans (including House leadership) view “tax spending” (special tax rules that defer or eliminate tax liability) as fair game, outside the “no new taxes” demand. Thus, we see ourselves as potentially at risk as a result of this group’s deliberations, too. The group plans its next meeting later this week and anticipates getting into specifics before the week ends.

Tax Reform: Both House Ways & Means and Senate Finance will hold yet more hearings on tax reform this week—and Finance held one last week. This is still “concepts at 30,000 feet” record-building activity. No hearing has yet focused on specific code provisions. Hearings specific to industries and practices are anticipated—but likely not for another month or two. We do anticipate hearings on long-term savings, on pensions, and on life insurance.

DOL Fiduciary Definition: The pressure on DOL/EBSA continues to mount. In addition to letters already sent by various lawmakers (many of them key to ERISA and pension tax rules), two more are in the works—one by the “New Democrats” in the House and one by the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs coalition (House Democrats).

However, EBSA’s head, ass’t DOL Secretary Phyllis Borzi, continues to say the agency is on track to finalize a modified new definition of fiduciary by year-end. It’s hard to believe that EBSA/DOL can continue on their current path given the growing pressure from Congress, though. Our DOL contacts tell us that the agency is “dug in” on doing a new definition—but that significant modifications are likely. But they’re not yet ready to talk about what those significant modifications may turn out to be. But the “hottest issues” are the impact of the new definition on advice to IRA owners (specific concerns about IRAs are in every Cong’l contact) and on the need to coordinate with the SEC (and CFTC). And we do have some indication that the bad original seller’s exception language (that advisors will have to show that their advisees know that the advisor is “adverse” to them) may change (to showing by advisors that advisees know they are “not impartial”). We’ll keep you posted as this “hot issue” continues to develop.

Health Reform: House Republicans continue to pound away on their desire to repeal parts, if not all, of PPACA. But there’s little chance for enacted law so doing any time soon. And, Treasury and the IRS have a Notice out requesting comments on PPACA’s employer responsibility rules. This will not be an opportunity to weigh in on why those rules should (or should not) be changed or repealed—the rules are statutory and the agencies have no power to change or repeal them. But implementation issues (e.g., how to define “full-time” and/or what definition of “employee” to use) are fair game for comment

Congress is now out until May 2…

Here’s what happened as this most recent in-DC work period ended:

1. 1099 reporting rules are no longer the law! President Obama signed the repeal bill (H.R.4) into law on April 14.

2. Congress approved and the President signed into law a funding bill that keeps the government operating through September 30, the end of fiscal year 2011. The “continuing resolution” (CR) contains a provision that repeals the employee’s free choice voucher program (a health reform law rule that forces employers to give certain low-to-middle income workers a voucher to use to buy exchange-based health insurance, if they so choose, rather than accepting the employer’s qualified and affordable health insurance). This is good news for our folks, given the administrative burden and the potential for adverse selection connected to the free choice voucher program.

3. The House approved, but the Senate rejected, new votes to de-fund HHS and Treasury as they implement health reform. So implementation continues.

4. The House approved (on a party-line vote (all Democrats and four Republicans voted “no” ) a fiscal year 2012 budget. The Ryan plan (named after its author, Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI)) would cut $6.2 trillion in spending (and reduce the deficit by $4.4 trillion), over 10 years. The Ryan budget also:

a. Calls for (but does not require) simplification of the tax code—but in a revenue neutral manner that would not contribute to deficit reduction. It assumes continuation of current law income, capital gains and dividend tax rates, and calls for elimination of “the tangle of loopholes” and a new top rate (for both individuals and corporations) of 25 percent.

b. Restructures Medicare—per the Ryan plan, Medicare will change from a guaranteed benefit program to a “premium support” program—i.e., Medicare beneficiaries will buy private health insurance with their own money, subsidized by federal “contributions” that are means-tested. This is probably the biggest political “flash point” of the plan.

c. Calls for repeal of health reform

5. Senate-side, the “gang of six” (3 Democratic and 3 Republican Senators) working on a deficit reduction plan will not be ready with a plan prior to the beginning of May. Sen. Conrad (one of the six), chairman of the Budget Committee, wants to start with the “gang plan” at the committee mark-up, but has told his five colleagues he can’t wait much past early May for them to come to agreement. They are not yet agreed—but here’s what they’re looking at:

a. Tax reform that includes a contribution to reducing the deficit

b. Tax reform that is based on simplification, patterned on the Deficit Reduction Plan (i.e., curtailment of tax expenditures

c. Spending cuts

d. Entitlement program reforms—it’s unlikely the Senate plan will include the Ryan plan’s restructure of Medicare into a premium support program, but very likely it will include Medicare savings. The “gang” is still discussing whether to include Social Security reform—3 other                Senators (Graham from SC, Paul from KY, and Lee from UT) are floating raising the retirement age (on a phased-in basis) to 70, and means-testing benefits)

e. Budget process reforms, including some kind of enforcement mechanism (e.g., a sequester or automatic spending cuts of certain spending targets (caps) are not met)

6. President Obama released his new deficit reduction plan last week, too—he is also calling for tax reform—his is a 12-year plan that would include about $1 trillion in new revenue from tax reform to reduce the deficit. He is reprising his call for letting current income, capital gains and dividends tax rates revert back to 2001 (higher) levels for high-income ($200,000/individual and $250,000/married) taxpayers, and for review (and curtailment) of tax expenditures. His plan rejects the Medicare restructure proposal.

7. On the DOL fiduciary definition issue, we heard late last week that the House Education & the Workforce Committee is planning a hearing on this issue for after recess. No specific date has yet been set. We are also hearing about a bipartisan letter from a group of Senators (Senators are still signing on, so the list is not final yet) asking DOL to coordinate with SEC and CFTC, to assess the impact on costs to those being advised as well as to those giving advice, and to re-proposed the definition after modifications are made.

The big news of the week just past was, of course, the conclusion of negotiations over funding the government through Sept. 30, 2011. The key part of that agreement for us is the fact that it excludes the “de-funding” of PPACA and Dodd-Frank implementation provisions in the House-passed CR. However, the agreement reportedly also includes a guaranteed vote in the Senate on either repealing or defunding PPACA (not clear which, and the actual terms of the agreement won’t be posted online until towards the end of April 11). Congress will have to approve the deal, and the President will have to sign it into law—votes are likely Wednesday and Thursday of this week, but all indications are that while there may be some more debate, the votes are there to enact the CR. In the meantime, the government is funded through April 14 by a “bridge” CR enacted late on April 8.

Tax Reform: With that debate likely settled, lawmakers now turn their attention to fiscal year 2012 funding, and to the likely need to increase the statutory debt limit by the middle of May. Both are expected to be even greater struggles between the House GOP and the Democratic Senate and White House. The budget proposals in both the House and Senate are likely to include calls for tax reform.

House: First up is House action on the Ryan budget proposal (approved on a party-line vote by the House Budget Committee last week). That vote is currently tentatively set for Thursday and Friday of this upcoming week. It is expected to pass the House, likely on a party-line vote. The Ryan budget plan does include a call for tax reform (but without the revenue targets and/or reconciliation instructions that would “force” the Ways & Means Committee to write a tax reform plan). It also includes a call for repeal of the health reform law.

Senate: The Senate Budget Committee plans to work on the Senate version of a Congressional budget later this week, or perhaps next week. All signs point to an initial proposal from a bipartisan group of six Senators (Democrats Durbin (IL), Conrad (ND) and Warner (VA); and Republicans Chambliss (GA), Coburn (OK) and Crapo (ID)) that will not only include tax reform, but also will include some kind of “enforcement” aimed at forcing the Finance Committee to write and then approve for full Senate consideration a tax reform plan. If this happens (and if it is approved), this could dramatically accelerate the pace of the tax reform debate. It may or may not happen, and even if it does, it may or may not survive a House-Senate conference to reconcile the two versions of a budget resolution.

DOL/Fiduciary Definition: Tomorrow (4/12) is the deadline for submission of comments to DOL/EBSA on its proposed new definition of fiduciary for ERISA purposes. More and more lawmakers, both Democrats and Republicans and from both the House and Senate, are suggesting/asking/demanding that EBSA rethink its proposal. However, the agency is still resisting the growing pressure to re-propose the new definition of fiduciary. It will take some time before it comes clear what the agency will do. They have promised to carefully consider comments—both those already submitted prior to and during the March 1-2 hearings, and those submitted since then.

Health Reform: There will likely be a Senate vote, relatively soon, on rolling back the PPACA—either by denying funds for its implementation, or flat-out repeal. Such a vote was guaranteed as part of the deal on the 2011 government funding bill. No date for such a vote has yet emerged, however.

1099 Reporting Repeal: The much-hated health reform rule that required reporting of aggregate expenses of $600 or more per year per vendor is on its way to being repealed! The Senate approved the House-passed repeal bill (H.R.4) last week. The President has not yet signed the bill into law, but is expected to do so soon.