This strategy could lower your lifetime tax bite, let you collect higher benefits and extend the longevity of your portfolio.

By Susan B. Garland, From Kiplinger's Retirement Report, April 2013

It's conventional wisdom that you should delay tapping your IRA as long as you can. There's also the tendency of most retirees to claim Social Security benefits as soon as possible. The unintended consequence: You're likely to shorten the life span of your nest egg.

A growing body of research shows that flipping the order may be wiser. You could lower the lifetime tax bite, collect years of higher benefits and extend your portfolio'slongevity if you delay Social Security and take larger IRA withdrawals in the early years of retirement.

Retirees who collect reduced Social Security benefits early often need to take some IRA money to meet spending goals. These retirees could be hit by what's known as the "tax torpedo." This occurs when IRA withdrawals trigger the taxation of Social Security benefits-and push taxpayers into a higher marginal rate. For these retirees, the tax torpedo can last a lifetime.

By holding off on Social Security and living on IRA income in those early years, you could receive a larger government benefit later, thus reducing the amount of taxable income you'll need from your IRA. The smaller IRA withdrawals could also increase the likelihood that Social Security benefits will remain tax free.

The biggest beneficiaries of this strategy are retirees with portfolios of between $200,000 and $600,000, according to research by William Reichenstein and William Meyer, principals of consulting firm Social Security Solutions. For these retirees, Social Security represents a larger share of retirement resources than wealthier retirees, so delaying could have a stronger impact on a portfolio's longevity.

To avoid the tax torpedo, retirees who are developing an income plan must understand how IRA income and Social Security benefits are taxed. Every dollar withdrawn from a traditional IRAis taxed at ordinary-income tax rates. But James Mahaney, vice-president for strategic initiatives at Prudential Financial, says that Uncle Sam "treats Social Security income at a preferred rate": At least 15% of benefits and as much as 100% is tax free-depending on your total income.

In addition, Mahaney says, the formula that determines whether Social Security benefits will be vulnerable treats those benefits more favorably than IRA income. While 100% of IRA distributions count as "provisional income" for deciding what percentage of benefits will be taxed, only 50% of benefits are cranked into the formula. (Provisional income is adjusted gross income plus any tax-free interest income and 50% of Social Security benefits.)

For a single retiree, up to 50% of benefits are taxable if provisional income exceeds $25,000. When provisional income exceeds $34,000, up to 85% of benefits are taxable. The thresholds for joint filers are $32,000 and $44,000.

As rising provisional income pushes more of your benefits into the taxable realm, your effective tax rate can soar. For higher-income beneficiaries, an extra $100 of income-or IRA distributions-can make $85 of benefits taxable. Taxing $185 at 25% costs you $46.25, the same as taxing your extra $100 at 46.25%.

You may be able to ease the pain by reducing the amount of provisional income that exceeds the thresholds. Because only 50% of Social Security benefits are included in the formula, you can pour twice as much Social Security income than IRA income into the formula before hitting the threshold.

Delaying benefits will get you a higher benefit amount later, and that can reduce the need for IRA income. By tipping provisional income toward Social Security income, you can reduce or eliminate the likelihood that your benefits will be taxed.

Consider this example from Mahaney. The Smiths and the Jacksons are 72-year-old couples who each have $69,000 in income. The Smiths, who claimed their Social Security early, take $45,000 from an IRA and collect $24,000 in benefits each year. The Jacksons, who delayed claiming, get $39,000 in benefits and take just $30,000 from their IRAs.

The Smiths' provisional income is $57,000 ($45,000 and $12,000); the Jacksons' is $49,500 ($30,000 and $19,500). Because the Smiths have more IRA income than the Jacksons, they have more income exceeding the tax triggers and a higher adjusted gross income. Assuming a 25% federal income tax rate, the Smiths will pay $6,060 in taxes each year, compared with $2,854 for the Jacksons.

Extend the Life of Your Portfolio

The extra tax tab could have a big impact on a portfolio's longevity, according to a study by Meyer and Reichenstein. Taking large withdrawals from an IRA in later years can significantly boost the tax bill-and shrink a portfolio. If you are in the 25% tax bracket, for instance, you will need to take $1,000 to raise $750 in income. (Kiplinger's has partnered with Social Security Solutions to help readers maximize lifetime benefits. Go to kiplinger.socialsecuritysolutions.com.)

The researchers offer this example of an individual who has $700,000 in an IRA when he retires at 62. Starting at that age, he needs after-tax income of $36,150, which is adjusted for inflation over a 30-year retirement. (His portfolio grows at an inflation-adjusted 1.2% a year.) He is due $18,000 a year in Social Security benefits if he collects at his full retirement age of 66.

If the retiree starts collecting at 62, he will receive a reduced lifetime benefit of $13,500 a year and he will need to make up the $22,650 balance with IRA withdrawals. His portfolio will barely last 30 years, the researchers note. If he delays until 66, his portfolio will last an extra four years. Delay until 70 and his portfolio will last an extra ten years. (If he doesn't believe he will live that long, he can instead boost his annual spending by $3,600.)

In this scenario, claiming early causes multiple costly problems. The reduced benefit means the retiree will have to withdraw more from his IRA, and since every dollar withdrawn is taxed, he'll have to withdraw even more to cover the tax bill. "It's a double whammy," Meyer says. "You are getting reduced Social Security benefits, and because you need to withdraw more from your tax-deferred account, it kicks up your provisional income and more of your benefits are taxable."

By delaying until 70, the retiree gets an extra $10,260 in benefits than if he had claimed at 62. He reduces his taxable IRA withdrawals. And by substituting Social Security income for IRA income, his provisional income is lower. The result: a smaller tax tab on his IRA withdrawals and benefits.

There have been many articles written about Dividend Growth investing as a strategy. Lately it seems that there are a number of readers who do not fully understand some of the thinking behind Dividend Growth investing and part of that confusion might be because of the individual variances that investors use in managing their portfolios as DG investors.

My own philosophy of Dividend Growth investing criteria might be a little different than yours, but I think that there are fundamentals to the strategy that most of us would believe in. Here are some of my thoughts about how I go about DG investing.

What You Should Know:

I like to purchase stock in companies that:

1. Are priced at a value to intrinsic worth.
2. Have paid dividends for at least 5 years.
3. Have increased those dividends annually.
4. Have a Dividend Growth Rate that is larger than inflation.
5. Have the earnings necessary to continue paying dividends.

Once a particular stock meets these criteria, if I buy it, then for the most part I am going to reinvest the dividends back into the stock when the dividend is paid. My broker is Schwab and they handle those transactions for me in a very efficient and no charge manner.

In the search for stocks that meet these metrics, I have purchased Coca Cola (KO), Kimberly Clark (KMB), Colgate Palmolive (CL), Johnson and Johnson (JNJ), Procter and Gamble (PG), Altria (MO), AT&T (T). While I do not recommend specific stocks for you to purchase, these particular companies have, in the past, met the criteria that I employ. More recent acquisitions have been CSX Corporation (CSX), Norfolk Southern (NSC), and Safeway (SWY).

I am not normally a seller of my stock positions unless the dividend is eliminated, is reduced, or remains the same. With that same principle, that means that I do not purchase stocks that have a great yield when they do not have a history of increasing their dividends. Those stocks are "stocks that pay a dividend," but they are not Dividend Growth Stocks.

A great reference point for Dividend Growth stocks is provided monthly by David Fish. He has a web-site at dripinvesting.org which has been a valuable resource for me and will be a valuable one for you if you are interested in DG investing.

What I Know:

I have been a DG investor since 1984. Now, I have to admit that I was not a pure DG investor until about 2000. I owned growth stocks, mutual funds, and even a few bonds. But, as I became more versed in the power of dividends, I transitioned to a more defined DG investor.

My goals with this strategy are simple ones:

1. Develop a portfolio that will provide me with income for the rest of my life.
2. Accumulate additional shares in my holdings through reinvested dividends.
3. Accumulate additional shares with new money and new purchases of my holdings.
4. Allow the DG strategy to work and the income steam to grow.
5. End up with enough income to fund my retirement years without having to sell any stock in my portfolio.
6. Use estate planning to leave my stock portfolio to my heirs for their own income source.

Summary and Conclusion:

I have written a number of articles in which I have shared my portfolios with you. My personal retirement portfolio is "The Common Man Portfolio." This is a portfolio that holds 35 different Dividend Growth stocks and is the basis of my retirement plan. "The Perfect Portfolio" is an investment basket that is in a taxable account. It is a more recent creation, having begun in 2009 and has 16 stock positions. "The Portfolio For Do It Yourselfers" is one that I started for my kids and it also is a DG portfolio that consists of 21 positions. Lastly, I have a portfolio that is a fun one. It's "The Dogs of the Dow" portfolio with 10 positions. Here are links to the most recent articles with those portfolios:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/876231-the-common-man-portfolio-and-total-return

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1134491-the-perfect-portfolio-year-end-update

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1105021-the-portfolio-for-do-it-yourselfers-what-we-are-buying-part-2

http://seekingalpha.com/article/1096461-dogs-of-the-dow-going-to-the-pound-in-2013

If you are not familiar with any of these portfolios, I would invite you to click on the "articles" section in the upper left hand side of this one, under the Callahan Auto Parts avatar. It will lead you to these portfolios and the articles written about them.

I hope that they will help you understand Dividend Growth investing, at least from one investor's perspective.

Disclosure: I am long [[KO]], [[PG]], [[JNJ]], [[CL]], [[KMB]], [[T]], [[MO]], [[CSX]], [[NSC]], [[SWY]]. I wrote this article myself, and it expresses my own opinions. I am not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). I have no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

I've noticed that there are many newer visitors to Seeking Alpha and on the other hand, many of the old timers (and I realize that SA has not been around a long time) seem to have moved on to other things.

I miss many of those older commentators and writers. Occasionally they will show up with a comment or two, but for all intents and purposes, many seem to have gone away.

In their place is a new crowd. I like new crowds. They have so many ideas and thoughts about investing that are just so wrong. They remind me of me thirty years ago! They seem to think that the stock market is nothing more or less than some casino game and that it is one that they can consistently beat--because they are smarter than the game operators.

I used to think that way. I remember when I was stationed in the beautiful A Shau Valley in Vietnam, how I was going to change my life for the good. I was going to become rich and by the time I was 50 (if I got home alive), I was going to go out and take on the challenge.

Forty years later, it's been a good run. I'm still working. Still trying to make more money. I can't stop. I love the challenge. I love learning the game.

Last night, as I do on most Friday nights, I recorded the closing values of my different portfolios. Now I'm a DG investor. Boring stocks, no growth, something that only a moron would consider a good investment strategy.

Now, my spreadsheet tracks the value of each portfolio every month end. The last column on the right is the percentage gain vs. the portfolio values 12 months ago. In effect, it's a rolling 12 month number.

While the month is not over yet and things change daily, since Aprils month end, the portfolios are up more than 10% in two weeks.

I think this market has further to run. I'm not chasing anything in particular right now, but I am sitting on my holdings. A correction of 10% would reduce my unrealized gain by exactly the amount that it has increased by over the last 10 trading days.

But you know what? My dividend checks keep coming in, just like waves at the beach. Over and over and over again. They keep growing with no "corrections." They keep growing at a rate that is greater than inflation. They have finally reached a place where the dividend income I receive is greater than my current salary. That is a fantastic place to be.

When I retire, I will not be drawing Social Security. I will be taking withdrawals of dividend income from my IRA in an amount that will be less than my current salary. You see, my wife, who is younger than I am, is getting promoted to an Assistant Principal's job in our county school district. She is getting a nice raise, to boot over her current administrator's salary. That raise allows me to withdraw less dividend income from my IRA, so that we will continue to have the same amount of income as we did last year.

The Social Security, meanwhile will be growing in "value" by 8% a year until I turn 70. That's as big as my benefit is going to get. My wife will be able to use my benefit as a strategy in that she can take half of my benefit or 100% of her own, whichever is greater.

In the meantime, my dividend income in the IRA will continue to grow--as I am taking out less than the total dividends received--my account will be subject to RMD at my turning 70 1/2, but that's cool because I still have a Roth working and being added to and I will never have to take money out of it at all.

Money drawn from the IRA over and above our needs will be channeled back into my Roth and my wife's Roth. Kind of a self directed conversion plan. It's almost like a perpetual motion machine!

But then again, that's the reason I started DG investing and the reason I stay at it. How about you?

May 16, 2013 12:02 AM EDT

Jim Roumell is founder of the investment management firm Roumell Asset Management LLC.

In the aftermath of 9/11, many young, strong Americans enlisted, willingly agreeing to sacrifice their lives if necessary to protect our country's interests. Today's wealthiest Americans have the same opportunity to put their country's interests before their own. Politicians should not shy away from asking them to put forth not their lives but what are, for them, their modest Social Security checks.

The philosophy of the investment management firm I founded 15 years ago focuses first on a company's balance sheet and second on its income statement. This approach has served our clients well. The current debate over entitlement reform is incorrectly preoccupied with Americans' income statements when their balance sheets should be the focus. Many in the top 2 percent of earners - those with annual income of $250,000 - reside in places with high costs of living and don't feel particularly wealthy. They make a fair point. With the exception of select deductions that dramatically reduce the effective tax rates of wealthy households, income is fully taxed in today's anemic economic climate. Net worth is a more reliable indicator of real wealth but is curiously absent from discussions of Social Security reform.

Gallery

Tom Toles on the budget battle: Collection of cartoons on the federal budget and economy.

By Federal Reserve estimates, there is about $67 trillion of household wealth in the United States. According to the Congressional Research Service, 74 percent of this, or $50 trillion, is controlled by 10 percent of the population. Wealth is much more skewed than income. The top 1 percent own roughly 35 percent of the country's wealth but only 17 percent of its income. My fear is not that we end up looking like Europe but rather that we look like the bifurcated societies of Latin America.

The wealth and income makeup of our society can be likened to a long game of Monopoly: A handful of players have done phenomenally well, owning Boardwalk, Park Place and the like; the rest are frustrated, somewhat demoralized but desperate to become competitive in the game. When I played Monopoly as a child, the winners would often offer the losers money, property or debt write-offs to encourage another round of play. America's winners face the same dilemma: Do we want to encourage more rounds of play for ourselves, our children and grandchildren by putting the U.S. retirement system on a clear path to solvency without hurting those who have not participated in the financial rewards of the game so far? To be clear, notwithstanding the game's current outcome, Larry Kudlow is correct when he asserts that "Free-market capitalism is the best path to prosperity," because creating wealth is society's first order of business.

Here's the math. According to the Wall Street Journal, the top 1 percent of the United States' 115 million households have a net worth of $6.8 million or greater. The top 5 percent have a net worth of $1.9 million or greater. If just the top 1 percent of wealthiest households gave up their Social Security income, assuming two-thirds of these households are of retirement age and will receive benefits averaging $30,000 a year, more than $200 billion would be saved in the first 10 years. That would contribute greatly to resolving the projected funding gap. If Social Security is gradually phased out for the wealthiest 5 percent of households, beginning with just a 10 percent benefit reduction, the savings climbs to nearly $500 billion over 10 years. Remember, wealthy households received a windfall of sorts with the recent changes to estate tax law, a tax pioneered by Republican Theodore Roosevelt, and continue to benefit from a discount of as much as 40 percent in calculating estate taxes when privately held businesses are passed on.

Some will say, "That's my money; I paid into Social Security." There are at least three reasons they ought to reconsider. First, it is a gift to be fortunate enough to give back to your country. When confronted with an existential threat from a foe, our troops step up; the looming shortfall between Social Security's revenue and obligations represents a serious threat to our future. Second, wealthy people have benefited greatly from the rise in general asset values over the decades, and the worldwide easing of monetary policy by central banks is sending the balance sheets of the wealthy further skyward. Third, entitlement spending on Social Security will increasingly crowd out public investments necessary to maintain a growing economy and stable society for future generations.

Yes, there would be challenges to implementing such an approach. But current law already requires wealthy households to generate a balance sheet for estate tax purposes. Add in thoughtful measures such as a reasonable new age limit and "chained CPI," and the Social Security shortfall could be solved.

After Jonas Salk invented the polio vaccine, Edward R. Murrow asked, "Who owns the vaccine?" The doctor answered, "Well, the people, I would say. There is no patent. Could you patent the sun?" Even against the backdrop of hedge fund managers demanding that their income be taxed at capital gains rates or the carried-interest boondoggle, our leaders fail to ask for sacrifice among those who can most afford it.

Nearly two-thirds of Americans 65 and older receive half of their income from Social Security, and more than 20 percent live on it entirely. These individuals often worked for modest sums but did necessary work while others, myself included, built businesses and made investments. We shouldn't let them down or rob future generations of the investments needed to secure their future.

I have been thinking about retirement for some time now. Recently, at a family reunion of sorts, I had a conversation with a relative who I hadn't seen in a while. She retired a year earlier. I mentioned to her that one of the things I liked about retirement in Mississippi is the fact that the state does not tax Social Security income or income from pensions, IRA's, or 401k accounts.

She informed me, in no uncertain terms, that Social Security income was taxable and that she paid taxes on it and she wasn't very happy about it. Contrary to my normal argumentative nature, I decided to just go and make myself another pulled pork sandwich and find someone else to visit with.

What I Know:

I have to admit, she got me thinking about Social Security taxes and I decided that I needed to look into it a little bit more, before I began taking it and being surprised. If there's one thing I don't like, it's suprises.

So, I decided to look at the tax consequences of Social Security and I found out some interesting things about the program and how it is taxed. Here is a link to the Social Security website.

http://www.ssa.gov/

You will have to pay Federal taxes on your Social Security benefits if you file a Federal tax return as an individual and your total income is more than $25,000. If you file a joint return, you will have to pay taxes if you and your spouse have a total income of more than $32,000.

But, there is some good news. Social Security exempts 15% of your benefit from taxes. That means that only 85% of your Social Security is subject to Federal income taxes--not the entire amount.

Dig a little further and you will find this

1. file a federal tax return as an "individual" and your combined income is between $25,000 and $34,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits. If that income is more than $34,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.
2. file a "joint return," and you and your spouse have a combined income* that is between $32,000 and $44,000, you may have to pay income tax on up to 50 percent of your benefits. If that income is more than $44,000, up to 85 percent of your benefits may be taxable.

What You Should Know:

For all intents and purposes, there are three times when you can begin to draw Social Security income. If, like me, you were born between 1943 and 1954, you can draw Social Security at age 62 (a reduced amount); at age 66 (full retirement age); or at age 70 where you will receive the maximum Social Security benefit (as high as it will get).

Every year, you should be getting a document from the Social Security Administration that outlines your contributions and your retirement benefits. If you don't have one, you can go online to their website (linked above) and get your statement directly from them with secured access.

In my case, here's how the numbers shake out. I could have begun drawing Social Security at age 62. My monthly benefit would have been $1848 a month. By waiting until age 66, which would be my "full retirement age" that income would be $2379 a month. Now, if I wait to get my maximum benefit at age 70, that monthly income would be $3191 a month or $38,148 a year.

Other considerations you will need to be aware of:

1. Are you going to draw Social Security and still work? Well, that presents a few issues as well.

If you are under the "Full Retirement Age" you can earn up to $15120 a year in gross wages (in 2013). Your Social Security income will be reduced $1 for every $2 over $15120 that you earn.

In the year you reach "Full Retirement Age" (66 in my case) you can earn $40,080 in gross wages (in 2013). Your Social Security income will be reduced $1 for every $3 over $40,080 that you earn.

After you have reached the Full Retirement Age--that is you have turned 66--then you are allowed to continue working, receiving income from your job and have no reduction in your Social Security benefits.

Summary and Conclusion:

I did some additional research with the state of Mississippi and I have discovered that Social Security is not taxed by my state. Additionally, my state does not tax pension income, nor does it tax income taken from 401k plans or IRA's. You should check your own state's treatment of retirement income and Social Security in order to put together a plan of action that makes the most sense for your particular situation. Here is a link to a website that breaks down tax treatment in all 50 states. Well worth the look.

http://www.kiplinger.com/tool/retirement/T055-S001-state-by-state-guide-to-taxes-on-retirees/index.php

Looking at your own situation, you cannot plan your Social Security game plan soon enough. Take the time to sit down with your CPA or an Elder Care Attorney and explore your options.

In my next article, I will be exploring a decision to wait until age 70 to begin receiving Social Security benefits. As a Dividend Growth investor, I want to show you an option that you may not have considered.

That option is waiting until age 70 to receive the maximum benefit from Social Security, and using your DG retirement portfolio (be it 401k, Traditional IRA, or Roth) as your vehicle to a better retirement with minimal taxes.

In 2007, an organization called The Economic Policy Institute issued a policy paper, written by a college professor named Teresa Ghilarducci. The paper was titled: "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts: Toward Retirement Income Security. "

There were three major points being made in that paper.

First, tax breaks given by retirement vehicles such as 401k programs and IRA's were unfair because the primary beneficiaries of those programs are wealthy people

Second, when tax breaks are given to individuals, the money that is placed into 401k programs and IRA accounts prohibit the government from collecting more tax revenues

Third, the middle class and the poor need to have a better retirement system than the current 401k plans and IRA accounts and those should be run by the government and not be left to individuals who are not equipped to manage their own retirement funds

What You Should Know:

While the conversation about retirement plans and how we might make them better for all Americans has gone largely unnoticed by most people, over the last 6 years, different "think tanks" have quietly been examining the inequality of our current retirement programs and looking for a "different way" to fund American retirement.

As recently as this year, the President suggested in his budget that there should be limits on the amount of money that an individual should be able to shelter in a retirement account and that there should be a limit as to how much income that retirement account should provide.

What I Know:

In a New York Times article, written July 21, 2012, Ms. Ghilarducchi makes these points:

Seventy-five percent of Americans nearing retirement age in 2010 had less than $30,000 in their retirement accounts. The specter of downward mobility in retirement is a looming reality for both middle- and higher-income workers. Almost half of middle-class workers, 49 percent, will be poor or near poor in retirement, living on a food budget of about $5 a day.

To maintain living standards into old age we need roughly 20 times our annual income in financial wealth. If you earn $100,000 at retirement, you need about $2 million beyond what you will receive from Social Security.

My plan calls for a way out that would create guaranteed retirement accounts on top of Social Security. These accounts would be required, professionally managed, come with a guaranteed rate of return and pay out annuities. This is a sensible way to get people to prepare for the future. You don't like mandates? Get real. Just as a voluntary Social Security system would have been a disaster, a voluntary retirement account plan is a disaster.

So, what exactly is Ms. Ghilarducci's plan to save American retirement? From that policy paper:

Workers and their employers would each contribute 2.5% of pay to an individual GRA. The government would provide an annual $600 credit (indexed for inflation) to offset workers' 2.5% contribution.

The contributions would accumulate in a federal retirement fund that would earn a 3% inflation-adjusted minimum return, which is pegged to the long-term growth rate of the U.S. economy.

Account balances would be converted into annuities that would provide a life-long stream of income at retirement. Workers could opt out of a GRA if they participated in a qualified pension or savings plan that met new federal standards.

Now, going a little further into the proposal we find this:

By design, GRA account balances would be converted into inflation-indexed annuities that, together with Social Security, would provide workers with adequate retirement incomes after a lifetime of work.

For example, an average earner who earns $40,000 per year would accumulate $152,095 in a GRA and receive a life-long stream of income of $10,366 per year adjusted for inflation. With Social Security, this would replace 71% of pre-retirement income.

A high earner (with an annual income of $60,000) would attain a 61% total replacement rate, because he or she would receive a lower Social Security benefit relative to income, whereas a low earner ($20,000 per year) would attain a much-needed higher replacement rate of 89%.

In order to guarantee the solvency of this plan into the future:

Only the federal government has the size, stability and long-term investment horizon to smooth investment returns and provide a minimum rate-of-return guarantee. Contributions and investment earnings would accumulate in a federal fund, called the Guaranteed Retirement Account fund.

This fund would be professionally managed like any large, pooled pension fund and would be overseen by an independent board of trustees appointed by the president and Congress. The funds would be invested in a balanced, conservative investment portfolio that could include American infrastructure bonds.

Summary and Conclusion:

There is no doubt that many Americans are not prepared for retirement. For any number of reasons, Americans approaching retirement age are beginning to realize that many of them have a significant problem--not enough money.

While on the surface, a Guaranteed Retirement Account sounds like a good idea. The devil is in the details, however.

It concerns me that someone who is called a "high earner", that is someone who makes $60,000 a year would get less in retirement under this plan than someone who makes $40,000 a year.

It concerns me that the plan targets a 3% return on investment money in the GRA fund.

It concerns me that the money in the fund is going to be managed "like any large pooled pension fund and overseen by an independent board of trustees appointed by the President and Congress."

It concerns me that the money will be invested in a "balanced, conservative investment portfolio that could include American infrastructure bonds."