He's not wrong.
It has been proven that the more decisions one has to make in a day, the more draining it can become and the more decisions that seem "unimportant" a the time are put off.
The 'too many decisions' argument doesn't really make sense. There are two separate things here, 'saving' and 'for retirement'. So forget the 'for retirement' part, and just look at saving. Saving = income - spending, and if you make more than enough to cover basic necessities, you have to make a large number of decisions about what to spend the excess on. Whereas if you just get the money direct-deposited into a checking account and let it sit there (the worst case), you have no need to make decisions at all. (This actually happened to me, back when I first started making decent money.)
If you automatically direct some to a 401k, that's basically one decision per job. Even periodic mutual fund investing means (for me, anyway) maybe one or two extra decisions per month: Do I have too much in the checking acccount? OK, which fund(s) should I put it in?
As for the article itself, it seems like the same old nanny state thing: because some people make stupid decisions, the government has to treat everyone as though they're stupid. Completely overlooking the fact that, according to all available evidence, the people making decisions for the government are far from being the best and the brightest themselves :-)