I am outraged by the proposal to suspend the Required Minimum Distribution, because it amounts to another tax cut for the wealthy.   Those who depend on their IRA/401k to meet their living expenses have to withdraw the money anyway, and pay taxes on the withdrawal.   It is the wealthy who wait until the very end of the year to withdraw, in order to maximize the tax-deferred gains.   It is also the wealthy who would prefer not to withdraw the money, but to let it continue to accumulate.   Ideally, they would prefer to pass the amounts on, untaxed, to the next generation.  

In 2003, the stock market went up approximately 20%.   Those who could afford to wait until the last possible moment benefitted greatly over those who had to take the money out over the course of the year.   This year is the opposite -- those who waited have experienced a loss (unless the market recovers before the end of the year).   I don't recall anyone suggesting we ought to reimburse those people who missed out on the 20% gain in 2003 because they had to take the money out earlier to pay the rent.  

If we suspend the RMD, where will we make up for the missing tax revenue?   The taxes from the poor will have to stretch farther, because the wealthy will pay no taxes on withdrawals.

Anyone who is over age 70 and has 100% of their investments in stocks is getting very poor investment advice.   What reasonable investment advisors do is to withdraw from bonds when stocks are down, and withdraw from stocks when stocks are up.   So there is no evidence that middle class retired folks actually have a problem with RMDs this year.   Again, it's the rich who don't have to withdraw, the middle class have to withdraw anyway.