From Cato.org

Many pundits argue that ordinary workers can't manage their own money. But millions of ordinary workers have already begun investing successfully through individual retirement accounts and 401(k) plans. Nearly every federal worker invests privately through the Thrift Savings Program. In fact, personal accounts would likely be modeled after the federal Thrift Savings Plan-simple, cheap, and easy to use.  Most personal account plans- workers would be investing in broad-based, highly diversified funds, not choosing individual stocks.

People could choose from broad funds tailored to risk aversion. Someone who will rely on Social Security for the bulk of her retirement income, for example, could choose a more conservative mix of stocks and bonds. Those with significant investments and assets outside the Social Security system, on the other hand, might want to invest more aggressively. There will also be a default fund for those who don't want to choose. In those "life-cycle" funds, investments are shifted depending on age so that the investments become more conservative as the worker nears retirement.

The bottom is falling out from the oil price.  I'm just wondering if the Democrats will put together a bailout plan for the oil companies.  I wonder if we will bail out Big Oil, or are the Democrats happy that Big Oil is being killed right now?  You remember during the last set of Big Oil-bashing hearings we reminded the country that no one comes to their defense when oil is dirt cheap.  Well, that's where we're headed again.  How about some hearings to find out what we can do to help?  Maybe open up ANWR, pass legislation to guarantee offshore drilling indefinitely.  There wasn't any greed here, there wasn't any price gouging, supply and demand, 8% after-tax profit. 

Let me tell you what they're talking about there, folks.  When Henry Waxman questions Greenspan on his ideology, it's capitalism.  Greenspan admitted yesterday that free markets screwed up.  That's how he stays in good graces with the people that run Washington, DC, because the free markets did not screw up, not even the great and courageous Alan Greenspan, apparently, has the guts to tell Henry Waxman that every bit of this mess can be placed right at his feet, along with Chris Dodd's and Barney Frank's and Barack Obama's and ACORN's and Franklin Raines.  Here's the totality of what Greenspan said.  You found your view of the world, your ideology was not right, it was blah, blah, blah, blah.  Greenspan said, absolutely, precisely.  "It's precisely the reason. 

I got this at the best place, and says what I want to but better. Back during the Republican primaries -- when the battle was between Huckabee and Mitt Romney, Fred Thompson, and McCain -- we were told by the Republican Party hierarchy that the only chance the Republican Party had (by the way, we were told this also by some of the intellectualoids in our own conservative media) to win was to attract Democrats and moderates; and that the era of Reagan was over.  It was said the only opportunity this party has to regain power is John McCain.  Only John McCain can get moderates and independents and Democrats to join the Republican Party, "and we can't win," these intellectualoids said, "if that didn't happen."  Well, the latest moderate Republican to abandon his party is William Weld, the former governor of Massachusetts who today endorsed the Most Merciful Lord Barack Obama.  He joins moderate Republican Colin Powell.  He joins former Bush press spokesman Scott McClellan.  He joins a number of Republicans like Chuck Hagel, Senator from Nebraska.  I don't know if there's been an initial endorsement from Hagel, but Obama is out there talking about how Hagel might be secretary of state or have some position in his cabinet.   I ask all of you influential pseudointellectual conservative media types who have also abandoned McCain and want to go vote for Obama what happened to your precious theory?  What the hell happened to your theory that only John McCain could enlarge this party, that we had to get moderates and independents?  How the hell is it that moderate Republicans are fleeing their own party and we are not attracting other moderates and independents? How in the hell did you people figure this to happen?  So the Republican Party's own strategy here not only has it backfired, it's embarrassing.  "The Republican Party, we gotta be a big tent," and that's code words for, "We gotta have some pro-choicers in our party to get rid of the influence of these hayseed hicks in the South who are pro-life."  Well, they have gone, and I, for one, say, "Damn well good riddance!"  Weld, why don't you stay a Democrat?  McClellan, stay a Democrat.  All you intellectual conservative media types, go ahead and stay a Democrat once you move over.  By the way, we know what this is about.  This is about being invited to state dinners in a Barack Obama administration.  This is about the social structure of Washington.  This is about style.  It has nothing to do with the fact that these people love Obama's policies.  They couldn't if they're paying attention.  Not if they say they're Republicans.  They couldn't possibly.   But they figure Obama's running the show, and they don't want to be shut out the next four years when it comes time to party.  Charles Krauthammer writes about this in his column endorsing McCain.  There are probably other Republican moderates who have fled and joined the Democrats and Obama, for whatever reasons.  I say, good riddance.  And this is why I say "I don't care who wins this election. The task at hand is going to be rebuilding the conservative movement and making sure that the Republican Party is its home," because the Republican Party hierarchy, bigwigs, people running McCain's campaign?

Chris Buckley said, (paraphrasing) "He's written great books, he's gotta have a great mind, but if he goes lefty on me, I won't like that."  If he goes lefty on you, Chris!

'Please, God, let him win' -- UN enthusiastic for Obama win...

Report: U.S. choppers attack targets inside Syria?

So say local witnesses and, er, Syrian state media. Bush surely realizes how much mileage Democrats will get from painting this as a contrived October surprise and an example of Republican “warmongering,” so if — if — it’s true, something mighty interesting must have been going on in that village to make him pull the trigger.

I read a column some time ago, I will try to get the point across. If Obama is elected it will not mean that racism is ended in America, but if he is not elected that will mean that America is still a racist country.

If "the one" is elected [if you buy the polls, looks that way] does anyone believe that the Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson, etc. groups will say that racism is dead in America?  Never happen.  Will these groups say affirmative action is no longer needed?  No way ever.  How about that Obama is a candidate of one of the major parties and is running ahead all over, it's all equal now.  Don't think so. 

Reporter’s donation using pre-paid gift card accepted by Obama, rejected by McCain

Demanding proof of address would just get in the way of Change, man.

Yeah, “wants” being the key word. The whole point of the blogosphere’s inquiry the past few days has been to try to show that this isn’t business as usual, that someone on Team Barry’s end made a decision at some point to dial down the security safeguards and his online vendor evidently agreed to go along. Why National Journal didn’t seize on that angle when they’re obviously willing to expose donation shenanigans is beyond me. Instead, we get a long, interesting, but not terribly exciting meditation on the flaws in verifying online donations generally.

Someone from Team Obama told Fox News the other day that they catch this stuff on the back end, so presumably the defense here will be that they’ll refund the money eventually. Revisit Weissman’s quote above for a sense of what “eventually” means. Exit question: How many staffers would they have to hire to verify donations that are coming in at a clip of several per second?

The same guy claims to have tried to donate the same way on McCain’s website and had his card rejected. I’m skeptical that The One would be quite this blatant about things, but (a) at the Corner, Mark Steyn notes that the only way to get his own online merchandising vendor to bypass a name check when processing credit card information would be to modify certain security settings, and (b) this wouldn’t be the first time Team Barry’s website had dragged its feet on online donation security measures. From Ken Timmerman’s much-linked piece at Newsmax last month: “Unlike McCain’s or Sen. Hillary Clinton’s online donation pages, the Obama site did not ask for proof of citizenship until just recently. Clinton’s presidential campaign required U.S. citizens living abroad to actually fax a copy of their passport before a donation would be accepted.” Meanwhile, in response to his earlier post on this, Geraghty receives this e-mail from an Obama supporter

WaPo notices the contribution fraud at Team Obama, but misses the real question

The Washington Post takes a front-page look at the shenanigans in Team Obama’s Internet fundraising efforts, but they don’t quite connect all the dots.  Matthew Mosk outlines the problem well, but neglects to mention an important point

Mosk never thinks to ask the one question that has already occurred to conservative bloggers.  What makes the Obama campaign different from online retail operations? After all, we have spent almost 15 years buying and selling products and services on the Internet, and retailers know how to protect themselves and their customers.  They employ a system that compares the billing information on the order to the information in the credit-card system — and when they don’t match, the sale gets denied.  Credit-card companies have gone an extra step in recent years by adding a security code to protect against fraudulent use.

The McCain campaign apparently uses these systems to prevent fraud.  Why doesn’t Team Obama?  That’s the pertinent question.  Systems have existed for years to prevent exactly the kind of fraud that has occurred in Obama’s fundraising.  Why did Team Obama deliberately avoid using them?

Can This Year’s Presidential Race End Peacefully?

And law enforcement folks aren’t the only ones anticipating election night “action.” At the liberal activist website MWCNews Dot Net (media with conscience), the following rhetoric appeared in a “report” filed last week:

“If your television declares John McCain the president elect on the evening of November 4th, your television will be lying. You should immediately pick up your pre-packed bags and head straight to the White House in Washington, D.C., which we will surround and shut down until this attempt at a third illegitimate presidency is reversed.” The implications of such language are obvious - - a McCain presidential victory simply will never exist, and anyone who might declare that such a thing exists will be lying."

Later in the piece, the author writes “If Obama officially wins, McCain is likely to challenge it, charging the Obama campaign with some of the very crimes engaged in by McCain himself. Our reaction should be exactly the same in the event of a McCain challenge as in the event of a McCain ‘victory.’ We should not sit back for even a split second and wonder how it will work out…We should be prepared already to immediately travel to Washington, D.C., head straight for the White House, occupy Lafayette Square Park, the Ellipse, and surrounding streets, block entrances, and shut the place down until Obama is recognized as the president elect or we are guaranteed a credible election with universal registration and hand-counted paper ballots. We may be there for days or weeks or months…We must show each other, and the nation, and the world that we have had enough, that we will not stand for one more stolen election, that we will not give in to fear, lies, theft, and intimidation…”

Additionally, Rolling Stone magazine published a piece last week written by the “esteemed” Robert Kennedy Jr. Kennedy claims that Republican “operatives” around the country - - Secretaries Of State, Lieutenant Governors, County Clerks, and other elected officials - - have a well-coordinated system of disenfranchisement in place, even better than in 2004, and will be arbitrarily throwing-out untold numbers of ballots so as to “give it” to McCain.

Why Congress matters

Oversight: You thought the Democrats did a great job advocating for oversight for Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae?  You ain’t seen nothing yet.  The Democratic leadership by and large still refuses to acknowledge the existence of problems with Freddie and Fannie (Pelosi is reported to have promised some in leadership that she won’t permit any “witch-hunt” inquiries into both organizations’ problems).  Barney Frank’s still trying to distract from these economic issues by calling critics of old Freddie and Fannie regulations racists.  With increased federal powers in the wake of the financial crisis, Democrats will have even more to exercise their (lack of) oversight over.  As the power of the federal government expands (over the short term at least), is it really in the interests of the American people to give complete power to a party that seems to have failed so much in regulating itself?  Think of the mortgage deals for Congressional regulators, tax issues for the Chair of the House Ways and Means Committee, the campaign coffers stuffed with funds from organizations (such as Fannie and Freddie) that these Democrats were supposed to be overseeing, etc.  Is this crew to be trusted with unchallenged power of oversight and regulation over the next two or more years?  If we want to deal with the current crisis, we’re going to need flexibility and fairness and a real interest in getting at the facts—not people interested in demagoguing issues only to extend their own political power.

Fairness Doctrine:  Yeah, Congressional Democratic leadership wants it.  Nancy Pelosi’s spoken in favor of it, as has Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin and House Rules Committee Chair Louise Slaughter (D-NY).  They view message control as one of the key means for them to keep their holds on power, and increased federal “oversight” of all political commentary on the airwaves will be a first step for limiting the flow of information.  Obama’s lawyers have been implicitly threatening the FCC licenses of those TV stations that dare to run ads critical of Hope and Change.  Expect more actions like that, especially if Obama shifts media regulations so that stations need to have their licenses renewed every two years and makes other regulatory changes.  Obama’s said that he isn’t necessarily in favor of the “Fairness Doctrine,” but a left-dominated legislature could pass it anyways.  Who knows what Obama-style “truth squads” could do in an environment controlled by Democrats…

Spending: Left officials and opinion-makers have already given up any pretense of trying to balance the budget.  So-called “progressive” writers have started the drumbeat that now it’s the Democrats’ turn to spend wildly.  Obama has also recently renounced following PAYGO rules.  Both parties most likely will support deficit-spending in the upcoming years, but, even if we are all Keynsians now (and believe in deficit-spending as a way of getting out of a recession), what kind of programs should we support, and by how much should we expand federal obligations in the long term?  Obama’s new healthcare plan will likely cost more money as he lays the groundwork for an expansive set of perpetual entitlements.  No matter what he’s said for a short-term policy, it seems as though Obama’s working toward a Canada-style single-payer healthcare system (he’s admitted as much).  While a number on the right (or pretending to be on the right) have lambasted the Bush administration for increasing spending, such entitlement measures will radically expand the government’s bills for a long time (the Bush administration’s 2003 Medicare reform bill did more to add to federal financial obligations over the next ten years than earmarking).  All this spending will eventually have to be paid for by higher taxes (Barney Frank will admit that), and the Democrats are already thinking of new kinds of taxes to place upon the American people as a whole (such as this plan being considered that would end the tax incentives for 401(k) investing and mandate that every worker place 5% of his or her pay in some investment program administered by the government).

Immigration: The trickle of enforcement we’ve had over the past year or so is very likely to dry up under an Obama administration.  Obama’s already attacking immigration enforcement officials as “terror[izing] local communities.” Look for a continued defense of our anti-skills immigration system and, through mass legalizations, a perpetuation of a system that encourages the exploitation of people and the driving down of wages.  Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) says that “amnesty” is the only solution to our current immigration problems, and the Democratic leadership in the House sounds like it will go along with that idea.  The Senate helped stop last year’s mass legalization; the filibuster was a crucial tool in that fight.  Last year’s filibuster was a bipartisan affair.  Under President Obama, will immigration moderates like Sen. Claire McCaskill (D) maintain a filibuster or give in (against their own better judgments) in order to prove their worth to him?  A President McCain would also love to sign a mass legalization; a smaller Democratic majority might make his achievement of that goal a little harder.

Gun Rights: Some of this field may be in the hands of the Supreme Court (and the hands of the man who picks the Supreme Court), but Congress still has plenty of room to infringe upon your Second Amendment rights.  There may be a revival of the “assault weapons” ban, or perhaps some measures similar to ones Obama proposed in 1999, which would make owning a gun an extremely legally risky proposition (for example, potentially charging a gun-owner with a felony if someone else steals her gun and injures another person with it).

The Courts: This point is involved in a few other issues.  Democrats were able to keep many of Bush’s nominees to various lower federal courts off the bench through the use of the filibuster.  Republicans don’t have the same history of filibustering judges, but they won’t even have the option of the filibuster if they fall below 40 votes.  Expanded Democratic majorities in the Senate could allow even further left judges to take power.  (Not that I’m advocating the specific filibuster of certain judicial nominees, but it’s always nice to have an option, even if you don’t take it.  Senate Democrats could also go “nuclear,” as Republicans considered doing in 2005, and try to end the ability to filibuster judicial nominees.)

There are a lot more issues—from abortion to the security of our voting system—where a legislature overwhelmingly dominated by Democrats could lead to unfortunate results.   Barring some bizarre earthquake in the national scene within the next week and a half, Republicans can’t take back the Senate.  They most likely won’t retake the House.  But they can, with enough numbers, be an effective minority—not only for their own interests but for the interests of the American people.  And if, somehow, they do gain a majority in either chamber, they could be an effective majority, too.

No matter the result of the presidential race, Congress matters.  The Democrat-controlled Congress is looking at a 12% approval rating right now.  The American people don’t need to double-down on a failed team.  There is another way.  Don’t give up hope.  Don’t give up persistence.  Don’t give up responsibility.  Now is not the time for walking away in disgust but for working with what we have and trying to make it better.  Now, we can plan and build for the future.

YOU'RE PUNISHED: OBAMA CAMPAIGN CUTS OFF TV STATION AFTER TOUGH BIDEN INTERVIEW...

Dems nix WFTV chat with Jill Biden

Why did Barack Obama's campaign cancel a WFTV-Channel 9 interview with Jill Biden, wife of Sen. Joe Biden? The campaign cited "an unprofessional interview" WFTV's Barbara West did Thursday with Joe Biden. In a statement Friday, Adrianne Marsh, Florida spokeswoman for Obama's campaign, said the station, in talking with Sen. Biden, was "both combative and woefully uninformed about simple facts." Marsh said West's insistence that Obama was an organizer for ACORN was "100 percent false." "In a line of questioning that would make Rush Limbaugh proud, West even went as far as to quote Karl Marx, a Communist icon, in a disturbing attempt to associate Barack Obama with socialism," Marsh wrote. West said, "I think I asked him some pointed questions. . . . I don't think I was rude or inconsiderate to him." -- HB

. . . remember: Anything less than total sycophancy from the Obamedia is considered “combative.”

Biden so disliked West's line of questioning that the Obama campaign canceled a WFTV interview with Jill Biden, the candidate's wife.

"This cancellation is non-negotiable, and further opportunities for your station to interview with this campaign are unlikely, at best for the duration of the remaining days until the election," wrote Laura K. McGinnis, Central Florida communications director for the Obama campaign.

When has Obama stood up to liberals and fought for a principled centrism? Never.“Barack Obama, False Moderate”

Democrats are so much better at placing blame. “Blaming Bush”

Or was it this? Democrats are so much better at placing blame. From the first moment that Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson warned of a freezing in credit markets, the Democrats, led by Barack Obama, were ready with an explanation that was partisan, simple, and wrong. It was trickle-down economics. It was resistance to regulation. It was, in short, Republicanism that had brought on the crisis. Nancy Pelosi, in a statement on the House floor before the first rescue bill was voted upon, condemned what she called the “Bush recklessness … the anything goes economic policy. No regulation. No supervision. No discipline.”

But if the Bush administration’s laissez-faire economics is responsible for the banking mess, why are France and Britain, both of whom heavily regulate their economies, in the same boat?

It’s a plausible claim because Republicans do tend to have more faith in markets than Democrats. The Republicans had an answer. But to find it you needed to search the pages of the Wall Street Journal, or read conservative columnists, or listen to talk radio. It didn’t come from McCain or Palin. They wasted crucial days decrying greed on Wall Street. And while you and I know that Wall Street is peopled by Obama-backing Democrats, most Americans think Wall Street is the home of Republicans in frock coats and bowler hats.

What they should have done is to point out that Democrats love to give things away. Voters know that this is true. The thing the Democrats were intent on giving away this time was mortgages to those who could not afford them. When the Bush administration (with the strong backing of John McCain) attempted to tighten regulation of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac — the Democrats’ sandboxes — Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Barack Obama refused.

The McCain/Palin team should have driven home the idea that there is no free lunch, that when government attempts to create wealth by fiat — by simply declaring that “mortgages for everyone” is the new rule and let’s not look too closely at how we pay for this — reality will catch up with you in the end.

Obama has lofty and laudable education goals — but advocates programs with no hope of achieving them. “Vouching for Obama”

We now know conclusively that there is no standard of objectivity in contemporary journalism. “An Instructive Candidacy”

Understanding this election is peanuts. “1976 Is Back”

A newcomer to national politics, he claimed to transcend partisan labels. He moved to the center during the campaign, at a time when the Democrats held large congressional majorities. In a troubled economy, he told voters he would keep taxes down for most Americans, limit spending, and balance the budget, all while implementing ambitious social programs. He planned to cut military spending to free money for other purposes, but assured moderates and conservatives that when it came to America’s enemies, he would be tougher than the Republicans. The media, droves of moderates, and some conservatives believed him, having pegged him as a man of character.

His name was Jimmy Carter, the year was 1976, and he won. His presidency helps us predict the likely results of an Obama victory in 2008.

Minnesota’s progressive newspaper endorses … Norm Coleman?

Michael additionally reports that the Strib casts doubt on Franken’s ability to be a “constructive force” for consensus and compromise.  That’s certainly an understatement, but coming from the Strib’s editorial board, it’s a rare bit of common sense and sanity.  When even the Strib’s editors see Franken as a divisive presence, the lesson for readers should be obvious.

How badly does this hurt Franken?  He’s been trying to paint Coleman as a lackey of George Bush and an extremist, which has always been a ridiculous position, one that even a DFL-friendly outfit like the Star Tribune can’t quite swallow it.  Note, too, that the Strib could just as easily have endorsed independent candidate Dean Barkley or refrained from any endorsement at all.  Instead, by backing Coleman, they may have put the final nail in Franken’s coffin.

Elitism and the progressive tax system

I read different blogs to get different perspectives and to keep up with the arguments on the Left, usually at sites with a mix of contributors like AOL’s Political Machine.  Tommy Christopher both blogs and reports at the site, and while I disagree strenuously with Tommy, he’s a good writer and almost always worth a read.  Yesterday, Tommy wrote an interesting defense of the progressive tax system and threw in some snark at elitism that once again shows a misunderstanding of the concept:

Now, I know that there are tens of millions of people who believe, as I do, that a progressive tax is about fairness, about not just the ability to pay, but the degree to which a wealthier person benefits from our common possessions. That position, like any that disagrees with a Republican position, has been dubbed “elitist.”

If that’s the case, then I say “Pass the arugula!” As I’ve said before, I come from a long line of working-class people, civil servants and tradesman, and I’m in the lower end of that economic bracket myself. Where I come from, a man takes care of his responsibilities and doesn’t complain. He pays his taxes. And when he gets somewhere, he remembers where he came from.

I would love to hear from all of the other “elitists” out there, the teacher, the construction worker, the waitress, the meatpacker, who think that people ought to pay their fair share. People who understand that the burden of these hard times is not falling on those who earn over $250,000.00. It’s “elitists” like us that have carried the weight.

First, let’s tackle his defense of the progressive tax system.  Tommy claims that the federal government somehow benefits the wealthy more than the working class.  I’m certain that will be news to both.  To the extent that one can calculate direct benefits and costs, the cost burden already falls almost entirely on the higher earners.  The top 25% pay 67% of the income taxes received by the government, and the top 10% of earners pay 46%.  The bottom 50% of earners in this country pay less than 13% of income tax collected by the federal government.  Direct benefits from government apply to those who pay less, not more, so the top earners don’t get direct return on their investment.

Ah, but Tommy argues that the federal government protects the rich, and therefore it’s right that they pay more.  But the only manner in which the government protects the rich is in how they protect all of us — by defending private-property rights, defending the borders, and establishing the rule of law.  All of that is neutral to the income level of the individual citizens of the US.

So why have a progressive tax system, meaning one in which rates increase with the level earned?  After all, a flat-rate system would still ensure that the rich pay more in terms of gross dollars while ensuring that everyone pay the same percentage of income earned.  Progressives don’t like that, though, because they want to have government determine winners and losers rather than allowing the talents and the work of individuals in a free market determine that.  And note that I’m not talking about government spending (and the various programs that support lower-income families), but only the manner in which the government collects its income.

The progressive tax system serves two purposes.  First, it punishes those who succeed.  Second, it minimizes the negative impact of redistribution so that more people don’t object to it.  A flat-rate tax could raise just as much money, but the redistribution would become more obvious — and unpopular.

That’s why Joe the Plumber’s objection resonates.  Barack Obama wants government to determine what is excessive wealth and confiscate it because government will “spread the wealth” better than the individuals who earned it.  That, in fact,is elitist, and Tommy doesn’t understand that.  A plumber can be an elitist if he thinks that people can’t make decisions for themselves and need a small, select group of people to make decisions for them.   Elitism doesn’t refer to people who sun themselves on yachts in Aruba, but to a governing philosophy that assumes that people can’t run their own lives and require others to make those decisions. 

The basic question from Joe the Plumber comes down to who should spend the money people earn.  If the answer given is “government”, then that’s the elitist answer.  If the answer given is “the earner”, then that is the libertarian, free-market answer that supports self-government and private-property ownership.  In fact, it also supports common sense.  Why filter wealth through a huge bureaucracy when Joe the Plumber can spread the wealth for no additional cost at all, choosing his own winners and losers instead of a few elites in Washington doing it for him?