The far left in anticipation of a wipeout at the ballot box are already planning the New Order. Those plans do not involve private enterprise or individual decisions. No more picking and choosing your own path, making your own journey. That’s too risky. From now on the government will do it for you.

So confident of victory are the Democrats that they are already openly holding hearings on what they plan to pass in their new veto proof super majority. One of those Congressional hearings involves the removal of the 401K from citizen’s retirement options. For you see we all are too stupid to do it ourselves and the New Order seeks to remove all failure from the human experience. Liberals have been doing this for years, no failing grades in school, and no grades at all when they can get it approved no winners and no losers by sports teams and now no winners or losers at retirement savings.

Other plots are out there also. How else is Obama going to fund $4.3 Trillion in new spending? If he took 100%, every penny of every person who makes $250, 000 and more – and by the way that is really $125,000 X2 because what is hidden in the fine print is that 250 figure is a total family amount - it wouldn’t even come close to financing what Obama has in mind to spend. The money has to come from somewhere. We have reached the outer limits of how much of this spending we can put on our children’s backs by borrowing and promising to pay back later. In order to finance the last stimulus package we borrowed $500 billion from the Chinese.

So some Democrat officials have also flown a trial balloon of future intention, that being of taking 15% of everybody’s pension and retirement savings who earn $125,000/year or those who have accumulated more than One Million Dollars in retirement funds. After all once you have salted away that much money would you actually miss a measly 15%? Think of all those people who have saved nothing. Have you no compassion? Well if you don’t your government will have the compassion for you, mandated compassion.

Rush Limbaugh tells us this:

“I want to remind you, two weeks ago Congressman George Miller from California who chairs some congressional committee, big Democrat, been there for ages, said, "We're going to have to do something about the tax deductibility of contributions to people's 401(k)s because government's losing money. We're losing money on this," so he's going to propose eliminating the deductibility of whatever you contribute to your 401(k). “

The Wall Street Journal outlines what this would all look like:

“A plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, professor of economic-policy analysis at the New School for Social Research in New York, contains elements that are being considered. . . .
Under Ghilarducci's plan, all workers would receive a $600 annual inflation-adjusted subsidy from the U.S. government but would be required to invest 5 percent of their pay into a guaranteed retirement account administered by the Social Security Administration. The money in turn would be invested in special government bonds that would pay 3 percent a year, adjusted for inflation.
The current system of providing tax breaks on 401(k) contributions and earnings would be eliminated.
"I want to stop the federal subsidy of 401(k)s," Ghilarducci said in an interview. "401(k)s can continue to exist, but they won't have the benefit of the subsidy of the tax break."
Ghilarducci outlined her plan last year in a paper for the left-liberal Economic Policy Institute, in which she acknowledges that her plan would amount to a tax increase on workers making more than $75,000--considerably less than the $250,000 Barack Obama has said would be his tax-hike cutoff. In addition, workers would be able to pass on only half of their account balances to their heirs; presumably the government would seize the remaining half. (Under current law, 401(k) balances are fully heritable, although they are subject to the income tax.)
Sounds pretty unappealing, doesn't it? But in her congressional testimony, Ghilarducci offered a sweetener:
Short-term I propose . . . that the Congress allow workers to swap out their 401(k) assets, perhaps at August levels, for a guaranteed retirement account--just a one-time swap. . . .
How would this work? You go back to your districts and meet up with a 55-year-old who had had $50,000 in his account last month and now has $40,000 in the account. He can swap out that $50,000, valued in August, for that guarantee of what would become, if he retires at 62, a $500 a month addition to Social Security.
A 55-year-old who lost 20% of his 401(k) because of the recent stock market decline was investing more aggressively than he should have, given his age. Ghilarducci proposes to reward this imprudence in exchange for dramatically limiting everyone's ability to take risks (and enjoy the corresponding rewards) and for greatly increasing government control of Americans' retirement funds.”

So what we have here is the removal of all 401Ks and substitution into a government managed guaranteed retirement account of 3%. Everybody would have to contribute 5% of their income into this new no risk government savings account. This account would then be merged with Social Security and upon one’s retirement the government would issue you one check for a combined payout of the two.

Kim Priestap doesn’t see this as a bonanza, rather a liability:

“Ten thousand dollars growing at 3 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with roughly $22,000. But $10,000 growing at 7 percent a year for 40 years leaves you with $150,000. That is a high price to pay for what Ghilarducci describes as the removal of "a source of financial anxiety and...fruitless discussions with brokers and financial sales agents, who are also desperate for more fees and are often wrong about markets." Please, I'll take a bit of worry for an additional $128,000. “

Mark Impomeni offers some further disadvantages of going this route:

“Rep. Jim McDermott (D-WA) said recently that Democrats had better ideas for the $80 billion that Americans contribute to their 401(k) plans each year. "We have to start thinking about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that's not doing what we say it should." Sen. Obama would likely sign on to the plan as president.

Obama, McDermott, and Congressional Democrats miss the point that under current law, Americans have control over their retirement savings, where and how it is invested, and when and how much they contribute. The idea to nationalize retirement savings is another example of Democrats' socialist proclivities. They want control of Americans' retirement to reside in Washington DC, not on Main St., all in the name of "retirement security."

Under the Democrat’s proposal any retirement savings would not lower your taxable income. You might consider contributing more than the required 5% to the mandated government fund by also making contributions to a private IRA. Again Rush reminds of the consequences:

“Now, one thing I forgot to mention here on this is that IRA contributions drive down adjusted gross income. Using my example, you earn a hundred thousand dollars, and let's say you direct that $20,000 of it go to your IRA, whatever the maximum you can put away. For some plans it's 30% max, SEP/Keoghs up to a certain ceiling, but let's say just for argument's sake it's 20 grand, so therefore your adjustable gross income is reduced by $20,000 so you're going to have a smaller tax payment. Once they take that away from you, guess what? Your tax rate's going to also go up because your adjusted gross income is not going to have your IRA deduction, and guess what this is going to do? It's going to push more people into Obama's new tax increase bracket. It's going to push more people over the $250,000-a-year magic number.”

No tax deferrals for 401ks means no deferrals for employers providing matching contributions to an employee’s savings deductions. These matches greatly help lower income workers and would not exist in a government run program. That 5% would be a straight 5%, no more.

Everywhere you look in the Far Left’s agenda it is all government all the time. John McCain has proposed a Health Plan that would give every citizen a health care voucher putting the choice and the control of each person’s health plan right where it should be, with the individual and nobody else. After looking at this proposal for retirement accounts it is not hard to see what the fate of Health Savings Accounts and Flexible Savings Accounts will be.