Just in time for the November election, yet one more example of Obama's "transformational change" in action: Welcome to "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts":
The point of the meeting was to figure out ways in which private 401(k) plans could be more "fairly" distributed as taxpayer-funded pensions. Senator Tom Harkin, Chairman of the Committee, hand-picked the witnesses for the meeting. Who did he chose? People advocating "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts." Sound familiar? It should. I've been telling you about this plan for at least two years. It is a plan created by Theresa Guilarducci and it would seize private retirement accounts, set up an additional 5% mandatory payroll tax, and then use the money from the tax and seizure to distribute it "fairly" to Americans.(Emphasis mine)In other words, from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
As a reality check, deal readers, try this mental exercise: If something like "Guaranteed Retirement Accounts" actually got traction in Congress, what would be the response by the millions of us with 401(k)s and IRAs? Leave our money there and let the Feds seize all of it, or pay the early withdrawal penalty and take out what we can before the bill became law? And what would happen to our economy when the hundreds of billions of dollars in those accounts suddenly vanished under millions of mattresses? The money in our retirement accounts isn't sitting in some robber-baron's bank vault somewhere, being used to light up his cigars and clean his spats, its lent to businesses (like mine) to fund operations and expansions, and to people (like you and me) to buy homes and cars. Haven't the Democrats ever watched 'It's a Wonderful Life'??
If the money we now put into our private retirement accounts goes to the government to fund Obama's Super Social Security program, will the government invest that money back in the private/productive sector or, as they do today, simply remove it forever from the private/productive sector and use it to pay government operating expenses? You have one guess.
Remember, this all becomes moot - for now, anyway - if we vote the Lefty bastards out of Congress on 2 November.
UPDATE: Here is Teresa Ghilarducci's testimony to the Congressional Committee hearing. Note that she does indeed propose Congress let you "trade" (like you'd have a choice... -ed.) your entire retirement savings for a government Guaranteed Retirement Account. Note also the teensy downsides she doesn't mention: If you built up, say, a $100,000 IRA and died before you were able to access it, your spouse and/or family inherits $100,000 (less taxes). If you "traded" for a GRA and died before the government allowed you to access it, apparently your spouse and/or family gets... nothing. Just like Social Security, the government keeps the surplus. Today you can, under certain circumstances, access your 401(k) or IRA in emergencies. Not with the GRA. The Guaranteed Retirement Account is little more than a scheme whereby a cash-addicted government can ignore their fiscal irresponsibility problem and, by taking over control of our private savings, have access to a vast amount of money to feed their spending disease.
No comments:
Post a Comment