Saturday, March 14, 2009

Obama's Proposal for Universal Savings Accounts Reveals NY Times Hypocrisy

Earlier this week, the NY Times published an op-ed piece where they tout Obama's proposal for universal savings account to fix social security. In fairness to Obama, part of his plan is decent.

The notion of a “universal” savings account is tantalizing. It suggests two possibilities: Giving everyone, no matter how large their employer, an easy way to save some money when they receive a paycheck, and eliminating the alphabet soup of 401(k)’s, I.R.A.’s, 529s and other accounts that we all have strewn about our financial lives.

Presumably, Social Security is one of those "other accounts".

So Mr. Obama’s plan would piggyback on existing payroll direct-deposit systems, siphoning off 3 percent or so of everyone’s salaries and funneling it directly to an individual retirement account...There would be a standardized default investment, probably some kind of mutual fund with a mix of stocks and bonds that gets more conservative over time. The key to making this truly widespread, however, is something called auto-enrollment. That means that unless workers opt out of the plan, the money will come out of their paychecks automatically.
Automatically, you mean like FICA deductions? Let us see what the Times had to say about this plan when Bush proposed it in 2003:

The change, which would primarily benefit the affluent who can afford to save more of their income, is aimed at encouraging an increase in the lagging personal savings rate and at simplifying the maze of retirement savings choices and other tax-deferred accounts for things like college education and medical expenses.

That's correct: they pitched it as a benefit for the wealthy. They also said it was fiscally irresponsible: There may be some compelling economic logic to cutting taxes on dividends, or subsidizing savings, but this should be done in a fiscally responsible manner -- by identifying a specific revenue cut or tax increase to balance the books. Have you seen any NYTimes calls for balancing anything Obama wants to do?

Why is the Times now so gung ho on the Obama version of this plan? I mean besides they just Love Obama. Let's see...
For households that earn under $65,000, the federal government will match savings up to $1,000 a year with a 50 percent tax credit. So if you saved $500, you would get $250 dropped directly into your I.R.A. This tax credit is refundable, which means you would get it regardless of how much you pay in federal taxes each year. The credit would phase out between $65,000 and $85,000 of household income, or half of that if you are single.
That's right -- Whether or not you pay taxes, you get this freebie. Obama is proposing additional transfer of wealth. Surprised?

You can't swing a dead cat anywhere in this town without hitting another proposal for wealth transfer.

1 comment:

OBloodyHell said...

The man was clearly identified as a socialist by the Socialist Party in Chicago as long ago as 1995 when he was first running for office in the State Legislature.

The was readily available knowledge (only the deeptectives at the MSM couldn't find any sign of it) prior to the election.

Is it any surprise you can't, as you say, swing a dead cat without hitting a proposal for wealth transfer?

More critical, I would suggest you examine this proposal closely. I will lay you huge odds that somewhere in the heart of it lies a seed for eliminating all the other forms of 401k, etc.

And therein lies the poison pill, as, if that is so, then it will very much NOT be mentioned by the MSMs.

This elimination of 401ks, too, was something proposed, if not prior to election (I can't recall) then certainly before he took office. As a matter of fact, I seem to recall it was a thread topic somewhere HERE. That may be a misrecollection, however.

The SOB is going to completely f* up the whole shebang.

Nobody listened.

"McCain's almost as bad", everyone said.

Ya All Startin' Ta Figure It Out NOW?