Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
TOP NEWS   LeftArrow - Townhall.com   RightArrow - Townhall.com  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Monday, October 15, 2007
Donald Lambro :: Townhall.com Columnist
Hillary's Retirement-Savings Boondoggle
by Donald Lambro
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Who should John McCain pick as his running mate?














WASHINGTON -- Sen. Hillary Clinton's federally subsidized retirement plan represents one more way to make Americans ever more dependent upon the government for their livelihood.

Her proposal is yet another quintessential Democratic idea to strap the country's workers to the apron strings of Big Brother, promising them a refundable tax-credit check of up to $1,000 if they sign on the dotted line for Clinton's campaign savings plan.

In return, they will be expected to show their gratitude for Clinton and the Democrats at re-election time. The program would no doubt be fine-tuned for years to come with other add-ons to milk the political payoff for all its worth. The money that she promises workers who are without pension plans of their own will come from the U.S. Treasury, courtesy of hardworking, overtaxed Americans.

No doubt the people who would sign up for her American Retirement Accounts are hard workers, too, but Hillary is asking taxpayers who scrimp and save on their own to contribute to the others who don't, and that troubles some analysts.

"This is a dependency-creating plan. Savings are supposed to make you independent. This one ties you to the government," says Bill Beach, a retirement-policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

The lure of a refundable federal tax credit from general revenues is a government subsidy, pure and simple. The worker who receives it doesn't have to work for that matching money in order to save it. "You have to work for that money in order to turn it over to someone else to save it," Beach said.

"It makes people more dependent on the federal budget now for their savings, in addition to all the other things that lower-income people might be dependent on," he said.

Precisely.

To be sure, the nation's retirement picture that the Clinton campaign outlined last week in Webster City, Iowa, where she unveiled her plan, is one of this country's biggest problems.

More than 75 million workers have no employer-sponsored pension, include 77 percent of small-business employees and 77 percent of part-time workers. These Americans do not have access to automatic, direct-deposit, retirement-savings plans because they work for small businesses that cannot afford costly, tax-deferred 401(k) plans that offer their workers matching private-employer contributions.

Nearly one-third of all households in the country do not have enough savings, including their Social Security, to replace half their income when they retire.

Clinton's plan would create retirement-savings accounts primarily aimed at these middle- to lower-income people who would be automatically signed up upon employment. The feds would provide a refundable matching tax credit -- dollar for dollar -- for the first $1,000 in savings by a married couple earning up to $60,000.

The tax credit would drop to a 50 percent match on the first $1,000 in savings for couples earning between $60,000 and $100,000, and would be phased out for anyone over that threshold. Workers could contribute up to $5,000 a year into these accounts. Continued...

1 2
| Full Article & Comments | Next >
Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author

Donald Lambro is chief political correspondent for The Washington Times.

Be the first to read Donald Lambro's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com delivered each morning to your inbox.

Subject: RL and Jim
Rel. Lib- why should there be any cap at all on SS payments? Let those taxpayers that are already footing most of the govt bill also pay a grossly inordinate amount of the SS bill. Let's just keep taking their money until we are all just as rich as everybody else! I, for one, will keep busting my hump just as hard for 45K per year as I do for 300K per year. Wouldn't you? How else would I be responsible as my brother's keeper? The 96K limit is there to ensure some limit of fairness to those who will be royally screwed by the system when it is their turn to collect on their "investment". Or do you think I should pay the max (12K) per year for 35 years but then just be told I am too rich to collect and that others need the money more? I see it coming- I will get none of MY money back. This is anti-American, anti-excellence and anti-industy.

Proud American...
I am with you! I am certainly not ready to give up. I just hope there are enough of us to make the difference.
Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily dose of conservative columns, editorial cartoons, talk radio, news, and more!
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.