A Stitch in Haste

First it was newborns whom Hillary Clinton invited to suck at the government teat via her infinitely asinine "Baby Bond" proposal. Now it's entire families:

Families could get 401(k) retirement accounts and up to $1,000 in annual matching funds from the government under a plan offered Tuesday by Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Rodham Clinton.

At a cost of $20 billion - $25 billion a year, the plan is Clinton's largest domestic proposal other than her plan for universal health insurance. The New York senator said it would be paid for by taxing estates worth more than $7 million per couple and would help narrow the gap between the rich and those who don't have enough savings for retirement.
...
Clinton said she wants to create "American Retirement Accounts" in which each family could put up to $5,000 annually in a 401(k) plan. The federal government would provide a tax cut to match the first $1,000 for any household that brings in less than $60,000 a year and 50 percent of the first $1,000 for those that make $60,000-$100,000.

A few hasty stitches:

--What basis does any Clinton supporter have for pretending that she is in any way a "moderate"? Her answer to every domestic issue, real or imagined, is to throw taxpayer money at it. This is not the behavior of a "moderate." Positioning oneself barely a millimeter to the right of John "Two Americas" Edwards and his brazen calls for class warfare does not make one a "moderate."

--On the other hand, Clinton is distinguishable from Edwards in one respect. While Edwards seeks to soak the rich, Clinton seems intent on soaking the working poor -- who, you may recall, don't save much. (Neither of course do the non-working poor. Or retirees. Or...) These "American Retirement Accounts" are -- like her "Baby Bond" nonsense -- a middle-class entitlement pure and simple.

--Is Clinton unaware that there are already a wide variety of tax-advantaged retirement vehicles? (Recall that the "match" only comes via a tax cut, not via a bona fide contribution into the account. Which of course means that it isn't really a "match" at all.) With very few exceptions, any non-wealthy individual with earned income can open an IRA or similar tax-advantaged investment vehicle any time they like. How is this new entitlement anything other than a solution in search of problem?

--Meanwhile, the real problem -- the reason the working poor don't save -- is mostly because they can't afford to. It's hard to save when one-eighth of your paycheck is confiscated by the federal government before it even reaches your pay stub. It remains unrefuted because it cannot be refuted: Anyone who claims to champion the working poor must, by definition, champion Social Security reform. What does Hillary Clinton champion?

Clinton said the accounts should not be used to replace any part of Social Security and that she is committed to addressing the long-term challenges of that program. "We have to fight and finally bury the idea of privatizing Social Security," she said.

That is a fight I have no doubt she, or whichever Democrat ends up as our next president, will win handily.

--Apparently these accounts would somehow be, not for individuals, but for "families." However (thanks to her pervert husband), there are -- as a matter of federal law -- no such things as "gay families." Thrown under the bus by a Clinton yet again. Go figure.

My main thesis is of course not only unchanged but also reinforced by this hopeless nonsense: The cure for Republican fiscal recklessness from 2001 through 2006 will not be Democratic fiscal recklessness from 2009 through 2012. The cure ought to be libertarian principles of governance. In the alternative, gridlock would have been nice. Neither will be forthcoming any time soon.