The argument against myRA’s expense is hard to swallow, since the next item on President Donald Trump’s agenda is a tax reform plan that could cost as much as $7 trillion over the next decade. The myRA program would be 0.001 percent of the cost. The claim that enrollment has been unenthusiastic isn’t much easier to stomach, since the program was so new. Publicity efforts, such as partnerships with Volunteer Income Tax Assistance programs and promotions through government websites and TurboTax, have not yet been executed.

Get TalkPoverty In Your Inbox

In reality, it was a deeply practical, badly needed program. I spent this past tax season working with United Way of King County to expand the savings options available to low-income taxpayers in Seattle. Tax time is one of the only times a year that saving is a real possibility for low-income earners—their tax refunds are often the largest lump-sum payment they receive all year. Asking clients a question as simple as, “Are you considering saving a portion of your refund today?” was enough to spark a meaningful conversation about budgeting, savings, and overall financial stability. Tax clients had the option of splitting their refund into a savings account, savings bond, or myRA, which was piloted at United Way’s tax sites for the first time this season.

myRA was a great fit for clients who were new to saving. The accounts had no minimum balance required, no fees, and no risk of losing money. Account holders could withdraw contributions in case of an emergency, and had the option to automatically contribute from their paycheck. And since almost 1 in 6 King County households are underbanked or unbanked, myRA’s accessibility without a formal relationship with a bank or other financial institution is a major asset. Of course, myRA was not perfect: It was hard to access without a Social Security number, and it counted against people enrolled in other safety net programs like Medicaid and food stamps (SNAP) in states with public assistance asset limits.

Imperfections aside, myRA provided a straightforward and flexible savings platform unlike any other. For middle- and upper-income earners, primarily white collar workers, retirement programs are an assumed benefit. There is no comparable alternative for workers whose employers don’t offer such benefits. And with the increasing necessity of “side hustles” in the gig economy, many workers don’t even have an employer to fill that role. Five states are moving forward with state-sponsored retirement plans called “Secure Choice,” which provides some hope, despite congressional efforts to block them.

After I left Seattle, I worked with a think tank in Washington, D.C. I passed by the Treasury building on my way to the office every morning, which gave me plenty of time to reflect on the thousands of taxpayers all the way across the country in the “other” Washington.

The label “taxpayer” is one Americans on both sides of the country (and the states in between) wear with honor, regardless of their political ideology. The structure of our tax code, the loopholes and deductions we permit, and whether or not we feel our tax burden is fair should be reflective of our values. If we value financial stability, for ourselves and our neighbors, we need to support programs like myRA. Without it, there aren’t many safe and accessible retirement savings options for lower-income workers. Innovative programs that could level the playing field deserve a chance to prove that they work, instead of being shut down.

Get TalkPoverty In Your Inbox

Incentivizing individuals—in this case men—to make slight changes saved millions of dollars in the janitorial budget. This approach, known as “better design” or “choice architecture” came into vogue when social welfare policy took a wide swing into psychology and behavioral finance in the early 2000s. The basic idea—that it’s cheaper to solve large social problems by tweaking public behavior than by changing public policy—is appealing, and it’s seen some success in specific contexts.

Take health care. Many health problems can be solved with lifestyle changes and a second opinion from another doctor. And so, in an attempt to make people healthier with lower costs, employers paid for their employees to access wellness programs and second opinions. But, behavior barely changed. However, when they changed the reward into a penalty for individuals who didn’t participate, many employers saw a surge—up to a 73 percent increase—in wellness programs sign-ups and second opinions.

Now proponents of choice architecture, otherwise known as “nudge economists,” are trying to apply this model to our upcoming retirement crisis. One thousand people are reaching age 65 every day, and at least one-third of Americans have nothing saved. For those who do have retirement accounts, the average amount is about $110,000, which amounts to roughly $250 a month for the rest of their lives. Choice architects are hoping to fill this massive savings gap with auto enrollment pension plans that require individuals to opt-out, rather than have to take the affirmative step to decide and actively opt-in.

However, behavioral nudges alone aren’t enough to solve this issue. Auto enrollment in retirement programs will bring more workers into 401(k) plans, but it likely won’t increase overall retirement savings. What’s more, the nudges to encourage participation are expensive. For example, we currently provide $140 billion worth of tax deductions to incentivize (mostly high paid) employees to voluntarily participate in retirement plans. Given the high cost, it’s troubling that there is little evidence that these deductions actually encourage people to save more—in fact, a tax credit may have a much larger effect on savings.  As a result, this nudge is largely wasted.

What’s worse, focusing on individual behavior in lieu of providing a needed form of social insurance ultimately blames individuals for their lack of retirement savings. Individuals can be blamed for not choosing employers with retirement account plans, for having to take low paying jobs in their late sixties and seventies, and for being poor or near poor in old age.  It is not possible to nudge someone who is encountering these kinds of barriers into saving for retirement.

Instead, we should be looking at large system changes that are designed to meet the needs of all Americans. Just as the Affordable Care Act provides universal health insurance to supplement free clinics and the hospital emergency room, we need universal pensions to supplement Social Security.

The guaranteed retirement plan is a pragmatic solution to ensure that all workers can save enough to retire. The plan creates personal savings accounts for all workers using existing government infrastructure, such as the Social Security Administration account management systems and any large state or federal pension fund system that wants to bid for the job of managing money.

Here’s how it works:  Workers will be required to save 5 percent of their pay in their Guaranteed Retirement Account (GRA). To ease the burden, every worker who contributes to their account will receive a $600 tax credit and households earning up to $40,000 per year—nearly 50 percent of workers—will have their yearly retirement savings fully reimbursed by the government.  Workers would be able to choose how much they will save beyond the minimum, and which manager will invest their money. At retirement the accounts would be paid out as a lifelong retirement security, with annuitized returns that ensure a consistent standard of living for as long as retirees live.

The GRA would be cost-neutral for all Americans earning less than the median salary, because it would draw funding by reducing the regressivity of our current tax system. That starts with closing expensive tax loopholes—such as tax breaks for the highest earners to contribute to retirement plans (which they would contribute to anyway) or mortgages for large houses (which people would live in anyway)—and increasing the tax burden on the wealthiest Americans.

A significant majority of Americans—including those most at risk of retirement insolvency—would benefit from this plan. And, since retirement worries pervade all segments of American society (a stunning 86 percent of Americans believe America faces a retirement crisis), this type of broad change would likely have significant support.

America’s retirement crisis will become a huge political issue if not addressed—and the American people need a real retirement solution, not just a clever new design.

Really more like a gorge than a gap.

This shortfall is distributed among a very broad swath of workers. In fact, the median retirement account balance for working-age households is $3,000. In other words, the typical working family is on a path to severe retirement insecurity.

Some of the causes of this crisis have to do with economic transformations we’ve undergone in recent decades. For one thing, stagnating—and in many sectors, declining—wages make it hard for workers to devote adequate resources to retirement. Additionally, the much-noted transition in the private sector from defined benefit pensions to defined contribution retirement schemes like 401(k) plans has shifted massive amounts of risk to workers, and, in many cases, decreased the value of retirement benefits — especially for workers who don’t begin putting money in their accounts early in their working life.

On the other hand, one cause of the crisis has been around for decades. Throughout the many changes in the American economy, labor market, and retirement system, the share of workers lacking access to employer-based plans has been alarmingly high, usually hovering between 40 and 50 percent. Though workers whose employers offer no plan could theoretically open an Individual Retirement Account (IRA) on their own, the data are overwhelmingly clear that far too few of them do.  A number of reasons fuel this phenomenon. First, sitting down and making one’s own financial plans for a retirement that might be many decades away is difficult and counter-intuitive. Second, the array of investment products available in today’s marketplace is complex and bewildering. Finally, low- and middle-wage workers often wind up paying very high fees.

Fortunately, the Illinois Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, signed into law on January 4^th, addresses several of these problems. Through this legislation, many workers will now be automatically enrolled in a Roth IRA with a 3% payroll deduction. All workers qualify who have worked for a company with at least 25 employees that has been in business for at least 2 years, and offers no retirement plan. Workers may opt out, or select a contribution level other than 3%.

In many ways, this is a modest idea: it doesn’t require employers to fund these accounts, and it doesn’t involve any government subsidy. On the other hand, it tackles some major issues. First and foremost, it directly takes on the problem of access to employer plans. Secondly, by enrolling people by default unless they want to opt out, it will increase participation. Finally, by pooling a huge number of participants into a single program, workers—especially those who have low wages and work for comparatively small firms—will benefit from fees that are far lower than many would have otherwise paid.

The idea of the automatic enrollment IRA for workers without access to employer plans has been around for nearly a decade. It was invented by Mark Iwry, then of the Brookings Institute (now at the U.S. Treasury Department), and David John, then of the Heritage Foundation (now at AARP). It was supported in 2008 by the presidential campaigns of both Barack Obama and John McCain, and has been introduced in dozens of state capitols. However, due to opposition from the financial industry, no state was able to enact a law implementing such a program—until we passed Secure Choice in Illinois.

Interestingly, after years of battling with special interest groups over this legislation, most of the concerns recently expressed are focused on the question of why the law doesn’t go further. Some have asked why the employee contribution level is only 3%, or why it doesn’t escalate incrementally every year. Others point out that by exempting businesses with fewer than 25 employees, we’ll leave too many workers without coverage. These points are all sound. Indeed, the Illinois Secure Choice Program, while a major step, will not entirely solve the problem of retirement security for workers in the state who currently lack access to workplace plans. What’s more, it makes no progress on wage stagnation or most of the challenges associated with the shift to defined contribution retirement plans.

So we still have much more work to do if we are to create truly adequate retirement security for all workers. But after many years of changes in retirement policy that have usually meant bad news for American workers, I’m proud to have played a role in moving our society in a new direction, and I’m energized to build on this momentum and strive for progress in the years to come.