This is the best time to be out prospecting in your market,encouraging companies that lack a retirement plan to adopt one.

Any type of plan they choose, down to payroll deduction personalIRAs, will soon be better than the alternative – a retirement planversion of Obamacare.

Related: Seriously? An Office of Retirement SavingsLost and Found?

Don’t trust me on this. Rather, believe the Editorial Board ofThe New York Times, which on August 16 published anastounding editorial on the subject. Having become a federalgovernment mouthpiece, The Times has an inside position tounderstand the real long-term strategy behind Secure Choice Retirement Plans, whichmay soon be coming to your state.

The long-term strategy behind California's Secure ChoicePlan

The first Secure Choice plans are expected to launch inCalifornia in 2017, and the Times editorial was afull-throated endorsement of California’s proposed Secure ChoicePlan. It was titled: From California, a Better Way toRetire.

The Times did not identify the alternative way, towhich Secure Choice is superior. Is it Traditional IRA, a choicecurrently available to every working person (and their spouses) notcovered by a workplace plan? A 401(k)? Or is it any workplaceretirement plan offering variety of investment choices and yourprofessional advice attached?

As The Times made clear, the answer eventually willbe…all of the above. The California Secure Choice RetirementProgram is just a foot in the door, and the concept gradually willexpand into the ultimate goal. As The Times put it:“Ideally, retirement coverage, like health care coverage, would bea federal effort to ensure the broadest possible participation atthe lowest possible cost.”

Even if most Americans don’t yet understand the agenda behindSecure Choice, The Times clearly does. It is to: 1) createa national alternative to the Social Security system, especiallyfor younger people; 2) require participation (“the broadestpossible”) by both employers and employees; 3) heavily promoteautomated investing and default investment choices, including U.S.Government securities; and 4) distribute retirement income throughrequired lifetime annuitized payments.

The Times also signals who are the bad guys in this story bystating that the benefits of Secure Choice are “the lower fees andhigher returns that come with pooled contributions and professionalmanagement.” In short, the bad guys are mutual funds and financialadvisors who charge fees.

Given the variety of choices mutual funds offer and the depth ofadvice you provide, few plan participants choose to invest in U.S.Government securities or take lifetime annuitized payments.Therefore, in Times-think, these influences must bediminished.

"You must adopt a retirement plan soon"

After showing business owners in your market The Timeseditorial, what should you say?

Maybe something like this: “Every working person in the U.S. notcovered by a workplace plan can contribute to a personalTraditional IRA with tax advantages. This can be done throughpayroll deduction, with many investment choices, financialeducation, and professional advice. For participants who wantcost-efficiency, it can be done through very low-cost index fundswith management fees of $10-20 per year per $10,000 invested. Thereis no way a retirement plan version of Obamacare can beat all this.But to make sure your participants get it, and you avoid the redtape of a government-mandated plan, you must adopt a retirementplan soon. I can show you the choices available.”

In short: Help business owners in your market “opt out” of aretirement plan version of Obamacare, while they still can.