There’s a difference between an ideologue and a politician. Onefights for a cause and the other causes a fight. I’ve always viewedPhyllis Borzi more of an ideologue than apolitician. As a result, regardless of your political leanings, Ithink she deserves respect.

She is someone who is to be admired. I believe she foughtearnestly and honestly for a pure fiduciary rule. Like PresidentTrump, she wasn’t afraid to upset the right people. In that way,she was a selfless advocate for the best interests of retirement savers. Unlike others, she wasn’ttaken in by the industry’s spurious arguments.

Related: Smackdown 2017: MEP/PEPs vs. state-runprivate employee retirement plans

Washington, however, doesn’t reward ideologues. It rewardspoliticians – those that know how “to play the game.” It’s aninsider’s game, with unwritten rules where the points – and thesides – don’t matter. It’s a series of tit-for-tat trade-offs nopurist could tolerate.

Tom Perez is no purist. When he came to the DOL, the onlyquestion was whether he was a pragmatist or a politician. Both canget the job done, but while the former leaves behind thesatisfaction of gracious professionalism, the latter simply leavesthe sour taste of the con.

This weekend we confirmed Tom Perez is a politician, whichleaves one to question the milestones he left behind during histenure atop the DOL. Were they in earnest, or were they undertakenwith a long-term political calculus as their motive?

In a way, I feel sorry for Phyllis Borzi. Though she and Perezlikely agree on most partisan matters, their motivations appeartotally different. It’s a shame that her reputation might bebundled up with that of Perez’s. It’s not fair to her or thevaliant efforts she made on behalf of the fiduciary cause.

Specifically, my fear is some may find her complicit in whatmany are starting to see as the most egregious of offenses decreedby the DOL as the final months of the Obama administration drew toa close. This was the rule that allowed states to disregard ERISAin the provision of retirement plans for private employees (see“Are We Better Off With or Without ERISA? And Whatare the Implications?” FiduciaryNews.com, February 28,2017).

Recall that state employees were never afforded ERISAprotection. In retrospect, with quite a few states suffering fromunderfunded pensions and one good recession away from retirementplan insolvency, the lack of ERISA protection is a bad thing forstate employees.

On the other hand, it’s a good thing for American tax payers, asthey have no obligation to bail out states that exhibit the leastin financial prudence.

And if you look at the states leading the way in offeringstate-sponsored retirement plans for private employees, you’ll findthe same states who have led the nation in mismanaging their publicemployee retirement plans.

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out their modusoperandi. With underfunded public employee retirement funds, thesestates are in dire need of money.

What better way to generate revenues than by tapping into thetrillion dollar private employee retirement plan industry. Now,that’s a very competitive industry, so the states needed a way togain the advantage.

The quickest way to gain that advantage was to offer a lowercost alternative. For those familiar with the retirement planindustry, among the most significant operational costs to serviceproviders relate to compliance, including (and especially) ERISAcompliance.

Worse for the states on this matter, while private serviceproviders have had decades to amortize the cost of ERISAcompliance, the states would be starting from ground zero.

All the associated start-up costs would create one of thehighest cost alternatives. To alleviate this, states lobbied theObama administration to exempt them from ERISA.

Last summer, under the direction of then DOL Secretary and nowDNC Chairman Tom Perez, the DOL announced its final rule thatprovided states a safe harbor from ERISA.

With that, states no longer had to undertake the expense ofERISA compliance. Furthermore, this allowed the states topotentially undercut private competitors on fees.

This was great for the states, not so great for any privateemployees that value the benefits of ERISA protection.

Now here’s where the great irony comes in. Just months earlier,the DOL professed to making the “best interests” of retirementsavers the number one priority. Now, the DOL was saying states’rights have priority over the best interests of retirementsavers.

If you think this doesn’t add up, consider this: If we can’tbelieve their statement regarding the sanctity of retirementsavers’ best interests, how can we believe their “fiduciary” rule can really do what theypromised it would.

“If you like your retirement plan, you can keep your retirementplan.” Those exact words weren't spoken last August, but plenty ofpeople heard them.

For the record, I don’t believe Phyllis Borzi was complicit inany ruse.