First things first...

I just have to throw this out NOW, before I get into my Obama rant...

Since the story about this "new Social Security" broke on the conservative radio circuit, I have heard the "spin" played as this:

"Liberal elements in Congress are considering the implementation of a plan by Teresa Ghilarducci, whereby all your 401k and IRA savings would be seized and nationalized by the Federal Government, to be distributed as the Feds see fit to ALL retiring Americans."

As much as I am NOT a fan of this woman, or her plan... at least I have READ THE PLAN. No conservative pundit has, and I'd bet my bottom dollar Ryan hasn't either. The "plan" (or a reasonable summation of it) can be found HERE, dating from the spring of '06.

Her plan is to end government-sponsored incentives for private citizens to save for their own retirement, especially if it creates a measurable divide between the poorest retirees and the rest of retirees. In other words, no more tax-free allowances for savings made into a long-term account that would only be accessible after age 65 or older. No more incentives to companies to match 401k allocations by employees, if they ALSO have to pay for a mandatory national plan (as her plan does).

To be fair, though... the money in an EXISTING account would remain safe and sound, and the option to save money with traditional savings plans and Roth IRAs remain, with the traditionally LOWER return rates and no company matched funds. The call is only to END Federal incentives where the PRIMARY responsibility for retirement income resides with the Citizen rather than the Federal Government.

The crime here (again) is that this plan reduces the MEANS of generating this "retirement income" to the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR. No amount of effort or study on the part of the potential retiree can have the slightest effect on the REVENUE that retiree will receive once he retires. What WILL effect the revenue that can be expected by the retiree is how many non-productive or non-contributing retirees will ALSO be drawing on it. If retirement is available to me at age 65, and no amount of additional work FROM ME will increase what I make in retirement, then you can COUNT on my staying home (or at my government-subsidized dwelling) FULL TIME from the first day of my eligibility to the last breath I draw.

It IS socialism... by it's very definition. Thus, the failing of the plan is defined within it AND Ryan's title: "From each according to his ability; To each according to his need." How many "functional" workers does it take to contribute to a system by which THEY will be adequately maintained in their retirement, while also providing the SAME retirement for someone who has NOT contributed to the system? Ten? Twenty? More? At what point does the system begin to suffer due to ZERO incentive to contribute more than the minimum?

So, you can see I am NOT defending the plan of Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci (far from), but if I have to listen to people rant about it... I want them to know what they are talking about. Hannity, Wilkow and Limbaugh DO NOT. Don't fall into that trap...