Posted on 10/28/2008 3:37:05 AM PDT by Sergeant Tim
Mark Levin interviewed Professor Teresa Ghilarducci whose plan for the U.S. government to take over private pension plans to "protect retirees" is being touted by Congressman Barney Frank. This interview will go down as classic Mark Levin. (She is voting for Barack Obama. Go figure).
"You pick your crooks," Dr. Ghilarducci said. No ma'am; we elect them.
Mark got it right. This scheme infuses funds into Social Security, with fear during the current shakey stock market as the motivator. Yet if you think about what Dr. Ghilarducci said during an earlier interview, you realize it creates an even bigger unfunded government liability for future generations to pay, sort of a double-down on Social Security.
Q: Is there any chance the federal government might take over private pension plans to protect retirees, as Argentina is considering?A: Some in Congress have begun discussions about how U.S. workers could be guaranteed more security but still see some growth in their retirement funds. The House Committee on Education and Labor is holding hearings on the issue.
On Oct. 7, they heard testimony from Teresa Ghilarducci, an economics professor from The New School for Social Research in New York. She proposed a radical, short-term fix, where 401(k) plans would be turned over to a guaranteed retirement account composed of government bonds earning a 3 percent annual return, adjusted for inflation.
When workers begin collecting Social Security, the account would pay them an inflation-adjusted annuity, based on the accumulated funds. For example, a 55-year-old worker with $50,000 in a 401(k) account in August would swap out the $50,000 for a guarantee of $500 per month in retirement.
Q: What about a long-term solution?
A: Chilarducci proposed the creation of universal guaranteed retirement accounts in which the federal government invests $600 for every worker. Workers would put 5 percent of their pay in and the account would earn a guaranteed 3 percent rate of return, plus inflation. The cost of this plan would be offset by doing away with most tax breaks currently offered on 401(k) accounts, so the government wouldn't have to pay any more than it does now. The accounts would be safer and guarantee all workers an income during retirement.
Q: What are the chances one of these proposals will be implemented?
A: That's probably not very likely right now -- but if they get backed by enough political will, who knows? There certainly is a groundswell of concern over the current system, considering that many workers have lost half of their retirement funds in the stock market.
Something to keep in mind, though: In the current system, trillions of dollars are invested in accounts managed by some very large companies -- and they'll fight any attempt to take away their retirement fund business.
We can't have businesses making money, being greedy capitalists, not in Barack Obama's America.
Franks and company would love to see that initial rush of converted 401(k’s) come in. They’d run to the nearest microphone and claim, “Look! We saved Social Security!” but Congress would spend those funds now. (’Change’ comes with a hefty price tag). The burden on workers paying for retired baby boomers would accelerate in a few years. When the Social Security and Medicare bubbles burst, they will make the Fannie and Freddie bailout look like chump change.
Mark Levin ping!
bookmark
I wish Levin had had another ten minutes to complete the job of taking this woman apart completely.
Thank you, Sergeant!
The annuity ends when you die. The 401K fund doesn’t.
I think it would have a big impact on this race if McCain were to get endorsed by Suze Orman. She has already said she does not like the sound of proposed tax increases. She tells her viewers and fans how to save and make money, not lose it. Although I don’t think she is a conservative, Suze wants to see Americans prosper and make money, not have it taxed away. I think the McCain camp ought to seek her endorsement.
I was surprised on one show when Suze said she favored a flat tax too. Sounds more Republican than Democrat to me!
For goodness sakes people we had a bloody revolution for much less than what is happening in this great country today!
That was hilarious. Classic Levin indeed! Thanks for posting!
Thanx for the ping Tim - I heard the interview last night.
Mark rolled her real good.
401(k) funds don't die so Congress wants to kill them, actually kill the deferred tax break that helped create a senior middle-class.
Aha! Those old folks were getting mighty uppity. And if middle-class younger folks were allowed to keep thinking their financial futures did not solely depend upon government, they might start voting for conservative government that believes in the free market.
I think it would make a bigger impact on the race if they ran commercials asking if B.O. supported seizing 401K funds.
Also nail down if B.O. will go on record regarding the Bush tax cuts. Will they be allowed to expire? Yes or no?
And we'd better start talking revolution again. Put a bug in the ears of the socialists that we, the people, will NOT tolerate theft of our earnings.
GUILTY!
Spot on!
When the Social Security and Medicare bubbles burst, the up-and-coming generations -- who learned that respect for life is nothing -- will gleefully practice euthanasia on their parents, and harvest them for organs.
And the current crop of boomers -- who started the love of death culture in 1973 and kept it going at all costs -- will have the nerve to look surprised. "All of that 'might makes right' was only meant to apply while *we* were on top!" they will squeal.
No cheers, unfortunately.
This makes me happy I graduated from The New School. /s
What I don’t like about 401K accounts is that the taxes are deferred until you withdrawl the money. You are betting that the tax rates will be the same or lower at retirement. With the govt going more and more socialist, you can bet the tax rates that you will be paying on the withdrawls will be a lot higher than today. I would rather pay the taxes on the money now and let my fund grow and not have the proceeds taxed at all on retirement.
So what's to stop them from taxing them again at withdrawal? Because they said so?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.