Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

If you don't think an Obama, Pelosi, Reid run government would result in a dramatic swing to the left, read US News and World Reports article on congress' discussion of takng over people's 401K's. 401K's are not 'rich people' savings plans they are middle America's retirement and savings plans, and Dems are looking to make them into 'government created' accounts. Would Obama, Dems Kill 401(k) Plans?

I hate to use the "S" word, but the American government would never do something as, well, socialist as seize private pension funds, right? This is exactly what cash-strapped Argentina just did in the name of protecting workers' retirement accounts (Efharisto, Fausta's Blog). Now, even Uncle Sam isn't that stupid, but some Democrats might try something almost as loopy: kill 401(k) plans.

House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created "guaranteed retirement accounts" for every worker. The government would deposit $600 (inflation indexed) every year into the GRAs. Each worker would also have to save 5 percent of pay into the accounts, to which the government would pay a measly 3 percent return. Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington and chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee's Subcommittee on Income Security and Family Support, said that since "the savings rate isn't going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not generating what we now say it should."

Hat Tip to Smart Girl Politics original article Kiss Your 401k Goodbye!

---

Democrats Discuss Taking Over People's 401K's

Obama's Tax Plan and Income Redistribution Hurts the Economy and the Middle Class

Senator Obama's tax plan is packaged as tax cuts for the middle class when in reality there are numerous tax increases on the middle class and on small business owners. Senator Obama's tax policies are similar to those of Herbert Hoover who raised taxes, implement isolationist policies, and drove the American economy into a massive depression. Senator Obama claims that his tax policies that give a government check to people not paying anything in income taxes are done in the name of fairness. However, the economic depression that his policies would likely trigger is fair to no one. Investor's Business Daily lays out the problems with the Obama 'spread the wealth' tax plan in their article Investors Flee From 'Change' Obama Hypes

These tax credits are devised to phase-out based on income, which will ultimately increase marginal income tax rates for middle-class workers. In other words, as you earn more, you suffer a penalty in the phase-out of these credits, which has the exact effect of a marginal tax rate increase. That harms, rather than improves, the economy.

With the bottom 40% of income earners not paying any federal income taxes, such tax credits would not reduce any tax liability for these workers. Instead, since they're refundable, they would involve new checks from the federal government.

These are not tax cuts as Obama is promising. They are new government spending programs buried in the tax code and estimated to cost $1.3 trillion over 10 years.

Obama argues that while these workers do not pay income taxes, they do pay payroll taxes. True, but his planned credits do not involve cuts in payroll taxes. They are refundable income tax credits designed to redistribute income and "spread the wealth."

Meantime, Obama has proposed effective tax increases of 20% or more in the two top income-tax rates, phasing out the personal exemptions and all itemized deductions for top earners, as well as raising their tax rates.

He wants a 33% increase in the tax rates on capital gains and dividends, an increase of 16% to 32% in the top payroll tax rate, reinstatement of the death tax with a 45% top rate, and a new payroll tax on employers estimated at 7% to help finance his health insurance plan. He's also contending for higher tariffs under his protectionist policies.

Finally, he would increase corporate taxes by 25%, though American businesses already face the second-highest marginal tax rates in the industrialized world, thus directly harming manufacturing and job creation while weakening demand for the dollar.

Obama argues disingenuously that his tax increases would only affect higher-income workers and "corporate fat cats." But it is precisely these top marginal tax rates that control incentives for savings, investment, entrepreneurship, business expansion, jobs and economic growth. While he wants to tax the rich, the burden will fall on the poor and the middle class.

Obama's Tax Plan and Income Redistribution Hurts the Economy and the Middle Class

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Barack Obama will need help in a crisis, says Joe Biden from Times Online UK...

Joe Biden, the Democratic vice-presidential nominee, has told Americans to expect a “major international crisis” that will present an early test of a Barack Obama administration.

His comments were seized upon by the Republican campaign yesterday to raise fresh doubts about the prepared-ness of Mr Obama to be commander-in-chief.

Speaking at a fundraiser in Seattle on Sunday night, Mr Biden said: “Mark my words, it will not be six months before the world tests Barack Obama like they did John Kennedy. The world is looking. We’re about to elect a brilliant 47-year-old senator president of the United States of America. Remember I said it standing here . . . we’re gonna have an international crisis, a generated crisis, to test the mettle of this guy.”

He cited Russia and the Middle East as possible places that may cause problems, as well as the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan – “crawling with al-Qaeda” – as being of particular concern.

Mr Obama would need help and support, Mr Biden suggested, “because it’s not gonna be apparent, initially, that we’re right.” He then spotted the media in the room, “I probably shouldn’t have said all this because it dawned on me that the press is here.”

Now why would anyone vote for Barack Obama when his own VP states that a vote for Obama is a vote for an international crisis? Why would anyone want to be a part of a ticket that one believes will lead the country to crisis? What an unbelievable statement. The only time a time camera falls on Senator Biden at this point is when he is trying to pull his foot out of his mouth. However, this is beyond a gaffe; this is disturbing. It appears Senator Biden sees Senator Obama as weak. It appears that Senator Biden, is not confident in Senator Obama's ability to handle a crisis, and it appears that Senator Biden would prefer a "major international crisis" that a Republican president.

---

Biden Says Obama Will Be Tested With A ‘Major International Crisis’

Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth

Despite the Obama campaign's and media's attempt to discredit 'Joe the Plumber', a fellow who simply asked Senator Obama a question at a campaign event, his question remains valid, and Obama's response proves insightful. Obama's $250,000 a year tax increase provides a barrier to success for the middle class, particularly for entrepreneurs and small business owners. For these people on the bubble there is a penalty for growth. Consequently, this puts the brakes on the growth of many small businesses, which are responsible for a large percentage of new jobs. Raising taxes in a struggling economy on any economic bracket is a terrible idea. Tax increases slow economic growth, and that hurts people across the board. If jobs dry up, it's not the $250,000 plus crowd that will be hurt the most, it will be the middle class.

Senator Obama's response to Joe is interesting. 'Spreading the wealth' is a principle of socialism. This combined with Senator Obama's plan to reduce taxes for 95% of the people, when 30-40% of the people don't pay federal income tax has all the hallmarks of a socialist policy. Senator Obama has never addressed whether people who don't pay taxes would receive a government check. Either his numbers are off or he is creating a welfare class is his plan. Subsidizing low income is the perfect way of encouraging people not to achieve. Why work harder if the government will pay you not to. Why start a new business if the government will penalize you for your success. This is the perfect plan to deaden the economy; penalize success, reward mediocrity, and limit the growth of new/small businesses.

Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth
Obama's Plan to Spread the Wealth

Heeeere's Johnny...

Who can make both Senator Clinton and Senator Obama roll with laughter? ...John McCain at the Albert E. Smith Dinner.

Video picks up at 2:38

Oh please, please, please, let this be a sign that McCain will be McCain in the last three weeks of this election.

---

Here's Johnny...

More Problems with ACORN and Obama's Ties to ACORN

Ken Blackwell the former Secretary of State of Ohio wrote an article for National Review entitled An ACORN Falls from the Tree. He addresses why ACORN is now garnering attention, as it was to be a recipient of 'Housing Trust Fund' money earmarked by Democrats in the first version of the economic bill. He goes on to note his own experiences with this radical organization.

As the weekend progressed, reports were constantly emerging of the sticking points preventing a final agreement. One of these reputed points of contention was whether 20 percent of the profit proceedings for asset sales in the future would go to what is called the Housing Trust Fund, subsidizing certain groups for ostensibly nonpartisan activity. One of these groups that this trust supports is ACORN.

ACORN has often been in the news since 2004. Officially, they work to register voters and support housing. In reality, everyone in public life knows that they are hardcore supporters for the Democratic Party, and employ bare-knuckle tactics. Their organization is plagued by repeated investigations of voter fraud and other crimes.

In Ohio, where as secretary of state I oversaw elections for eight years, ACORN has been busy. One ACORN man in Reynoldsburg was indicted on two felony counts of voter fraud, and another was indicted in Columbus. Other such problems surfaced in Cuyahoga County, where criminal investigations are ongoing.

The New York Post notes in their article The Meltdown's Acorn that Obama is directly connected to ACORN and he said so himself as recently as last November.

"I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career," he [Obama] told the group last November.

Indeed, in the early '90s, Obama was recruited by Talbott herself to run training sessions for ACORN activists.

ACORN also got funding from two charities, the Woods Fund and the Joyce Foundation, when Obama served on their boards, and from the Chicago Annenberg Challenge - the radical "education reform" outfit Obama ran from '95 to '99.

Ironically, the group stood to be a key beneficiary of the goodies Democrats were loading into Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson's rescue plan - including one demand that 20 percent of any profits the feds make from reselling mortgage securities go to fund groups like ACORN.

Stanley Kurtz of National Review article Inside Obama's Acorn details the aggressive methods of intimidation used by ACORN, as well as a shrewd tactical strategy that has kept them below the radar nationally. Thus ACORN's radicalism and often illegal behavior garners much less attention than groups like MoveOn or Code Pink who seek the spotlight and in many ways are less radical. Kurtz refers to Sol Stern's explanation of ACORN and a reply to his explanation by John Atlas and Peter Dreier.

Do Atlas and Dreier dismiss Stern’s catalogue of Acorn’s disruptive and intentionally intimidating tactics as a set of regrettable exceptions to Acorn’s rule of civility? Not a chance. Atlas and Dreier are at pains to point out that intimidation works. They proudly reel off the increased memberships that follow in the wake of high-profile disruptions, and clearly imply that the same public officials who object most vociferously to intimidation are the ones most likely to cave as a result. What really upsets Atlas and Dreier is that Stern misses the subtle national hand directing Acorn’s various local campaigns. This is radicalism unashamed.

But don’t let the disruptive tactics fool you. Acorn is a savvy and exceedingly effective political player. Stern says that Acorn’s key post–New Left innovation is its determination to take over the system from within, rather than futilely try to overthrow it from without. Stern calls this strategy a political version of Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Take Atlas and Dreier at their word: Acorn has an openly aggressive and intimidating side, but a sophisticated inside game, as well. Chicago’s Acorn leader, for example, won a seat on the Board of Aldermen as the candidate of a leftist “New Party.”

This is a definitively radical organization and Mr. Blackwell correctly states that, "Mr. Obama needs to explain his involvement with them."

---

More Problems with ACORN and Obama's Ties to ACORN

McCain on Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Economic Crisis

Bill Clinton John McCain Endorsement?

Sure sounds like an endorsement. Certainly not a reach to see McCain as Clinton approved.

Bill Clinton Endorses John McCain Sort of

Why Obama Cancelled Wounded Troop Visit

The Obama campaign still lacks a reason for not visiting wounded soldiers in Germany. They have decided to blame the Pentagon for their decision not to visit the military hospital. However, numerous sources confirm that Obama was never told that he could not visit the soldiers, just that bringing campaign staff and cameras was considered inappropriate. The Washington Post states that Obama knew about the rules.

"The senator's staff was informed of the limits on what the military can do with respect to a political campaign and how we could support a senator's visit to Landstuhl and, quite frankly, I expected them to have the visit," Whitman said.

Fox questions Robert Gibbs, a campaign spokesman, about whether they knew of these rules.

“Q: Did it not occur to anybody that this might be viewed as a political stop?

Gibbs: We had taken some of that into consideration, but we believed that it could be done in a way that would not create, it would not be created or seen as a campaign stop.”

However, the LA Times reports that Gibbs blamed the Pentagon not informing them of their restrictions until too late.

“Obama spokesman Robert Gibbs initially released a statement saying the senator had decided to cancel out of respect for the troops, because it would be inappropriate on "a trip funded by the campaign."

That statement said nothing about the Pentagon restriction. Gibbs later said it became apparent the Pentagon "would have tried to politicize this, and then others would try to politicize this."

The reasons for not visiting the troops have been universally weak. The desire not to use campagin funds to visit wounded soldiers smacks of an unbelievable level greed or cheapness. Blaming the Pentagon rings hollow since they never disallowed the trip. The only complaint that has a ring of truth to it is that the Obama campaign didn’t want to follow the rules of no cameras and limited staff. Why meet with service men and women who have sacraficed greatly for their country if Senator Obama can’t put on a show? Unfortunately, as MSNBC notes, the wounded soldiers were let down by Senator Obama’s decision to cancel,

Whatever the reason, Obama and the troops he would have visited have both missed a unique and historic opportunity. According to one Army lieutenant colonel, "Everyone was excited about Obama's visit. It's a shame."

---

Obama Searches for the Reason Why He Snubbed Wounded Soldiers