The state-sponsored retirement plans for the private sector are already underway, with six states having enacted laws authorizing the programs, and more than half of the state legislatures having considered similar programs over the last four years. In the absence of congressional action on proposals for automatic-deposit IRAs run by a federal agency, it is likely we'll continue to see more initiatives on the state level. That is clearly a trend, although it's highly unlikely you'll see a tsunami wave come out of this. 

There are two reasons why. One is a potential legal challenge to the DOL rule, and the second is simply partisan politics. Even though the Department of Labor gave the green light to the states by in effect saying these programs wouldn't come under ERISA and its strict fiduciary requirements, it is ripe for a legal challenge in court over the preemption issue. Could it reach the Supreme Court? Possibly, with the odds going up for a review if the circuits split. While the Supreme Court only takes up 1 percent of appeals filed each year, in recent years, it has taken an interest in ERISA cases. So we'll have to see how this unfolds. 

Second, this really boils to partisan politics on the local level, and the end game doesn't look good for proponents.  The half-dozen states that have adopted programs — California, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Oregon and Washington — are all blue states. But when you look at the state legislatures controlled by one party, Republicans hold control over 31, Democrats 11, and eight are split. I'm not sure how the political dynamics will change after November 8, but probably not by much. This legislative initiative may have already hit its high-water mark. That said, Wall Street's lobby isn't as strong in the states, which is why we've seen some of these bills pass over their opposition. However, the insurance lobby is traditionally much stronger on the state level. It's not clear how much they've gotten involved, since this issue hasn't set off alarm bells quite yet. But if the insurance lobby mobilizes around the country, they would be a formidable opponent. And these initiatives could easily die on their own in the red states. 

There is also the basic math question. The vast majority of American families live paycheck to paycheck. They either can't afford to save or are unwilling to do so. Although we've seen significant success in enrollments under the PPA, and the driving force behind the state plans are auto enrollment with opt-outs, it's not clear how well the state experiment will pan out. Consumer and pension rights groups may mobilize for state and city auto-IRA programs, but it's not clear how far they will get absent a real retirement crisis. The biggest political threat for opponents could indeed be the "blue" cities adopting auto-IRA programs, even if they are located in "red" states. However, it will also be expensive setting up these programs on the city or county level, unless someone comes up with a cost-effective turn-key solution. 

And finally, I don't think the states or DOL have clearly resolved the issue around fiduciary accountability. The state laws to this point make clear that the employers won't be held liable for investment losses. But at the end of the day, someone or some entity holding the keys to the state trust account will end up with fiduciary status — whether it's determined by the courts or state legislatures.  

Joe Ellis, senior vice president at CBIZ Employee Services

Hillary Clinton has talked a lot about paid parental leave and childcare . How realistic is it that this will be something she does out of the gate if she wins?

I am not sure it will be one of the first initiatives she moves on, but it will be near the top of her agenda. There is really no fiscal impact on the federal government for paid parental leave, so that will be an easy one for her. The childcare issue, to the extent the Feds are paying for any of it, such as through tax credits, will be more difficult to do, especially since it will be viewed as a new entitlement. 

What issues are employers hoping the president-elect tackles first?

Regardless of who wins, employers are desperate for relief from lack of options on health plan designs. The mandated benefits are just too restrictive. And there is even more hope that the winner will reduce the burdens of ACA. Both candidates promise to address the extremely high cost of some prescriptions, especially specialty drugs. And employers want some sanity brought to light about the EpiPen debacle this past year. 

Trump has said he would be committed to appointing a SCOTUS justice that would overturn last year's gay marriage ruling. How would this affect LGBT employees and their spouses?

The irony of the gay marriage ruling is that domestic partner coverage is disappearing. Since anyone can get married to the partner of their choice, some employers are asking employees to prove their marriage status. It seems employers are willing to cover spouses, regardless of the nature of the relationship. But they do not allow non-spouses on their plans. 

How much of an impact will this year's election have on employee benefits? Does it differ based on company size or industry?

This election has the potential to have a significant impact on employee benefits. Trump wants to repeal and replace the ACA. Clinton want to continue it and build on the ACA. No matter the winner, plenty of updates, enhancements, regulations, and especially costs will be affected. And all of these changes directly affect employees. So just when we thought the Cadillac Tax was one of our last big issues, the candidates have made ACA a big part of their platforms. 

Would either Clinton or Trump truly have a significant impact on the ACA's future?

The best way to sum up the future of Health Care in America is to look at the candidates' fundamental approaches to addressing it:

Clinton = government solutions  

Trump = free market solutions