"...and would be able to get matching funds from the government."

Personally, if I wanted cash from the gov't I'd go and get a gov't job. But that's just me.

One wonders what the heck Hillary's electoral strategy is. The Dems had a two-pronged strategy in 2006--imply (but be very careful to NEVER say) that they would end the Iraq War immediately and so fire up their deep-blue activist base, and peel off enough red voters disaffected with GOP "corruption" and overspending. The former are of course going to hold their nose and vote for her even though she is going to run from them like the plague starting in a couple of months, but the latter don't like her and aren't going to be convinced by even more gov't spending.

"matching funds from the gov't"

Can I get mine in the form of cattle futures?

The govt gets its matching funds from the tax payers.

The government is going to "pay for" this by imposing an inheritance surtax on estates worth over $7 million per couple. Which sounds like a lot, until you consider that it's already very common for ordinary middle-class people who grew up during the Depression to leave behind estates in the $1-$2 million range. If the ownership society keeps on growing -- and even Hillary! may have a hard time stopping it -- a $7 million estate is going to be average in the not-too-distant future. You know, considering the number of tax and estate lawyers my firm has hired lately I suppose I should be happy, but this really doesn't appeal to me.

It's less government spending, which is why it's conservative politics.

The plan is unfair in that the government contribution is higher for people who contribute more of their own earnings, and people who contribute none of their own earnings receive nothing at all. Further, it's not clear what insurance could be given that matching contributions would continue during extended periods of unemployment. Hopefully future post-election iterations of the proposed program will address these potential inequities.

Let me get this straight: It is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad idea to allow me to put my own money that currently is taken for SS taxes into a 401k account. But it is a wonderful, great idea for the gov't to "give" me money to put into my 401k account (see ic's point about where exactly this money comes from).

oj, you're crazy. This is dependency politics at its extreme. This has nothing to do with any conservatism, not even if we torture the meaning of words to lengths worthy of Andrew Sullivan. And along those lines, your inevitable endorsement of Hillary is going to be about as shocking as his choice of Kerry was.

A couple of other issues.

If workers earnings are invested in stocks and stock mutual funds, program participants would be exposed to market risk. Some provision should be made for individuals whose holdings are substantially reduced due to a market downturn at or near retirement age.

Also, it seems appropriate that the government ensure it's portion of the contribution is steered to socially responsible investments as determined by it's elected officials.

I'm calling it here first. In the Giulliani v. Clinton 08 election, BrothersJudd is going for Clinton.

Such accounts will have to force folks into less risky instruments at certain milestones of aging.

b:

What's the actual difference (not the ideological one)?

She's conceding personalized SS--the rest is mere details.

Too late. I've long said I'd prefer Hillary to Rudy, thus the title of the post.

Taking the estates of the wealthy dead is age old republican dogma.

oj: I don't really know what "difference" you would like clarifying, but I'll make a guess--the difference is that "SS privatization" doesn't create new gov't dependents or bureaucracies, while "401Hillaries" do.

So you think old people who didn't save when they were young starve in snowbanks today? SS is a universal dependency. Funding retirement when we're young just makes it cheaper.

Such accounts will have to force folks into less risky instruments at certain milestones of aging.

Agree. Control over the fund should be transferred to the state as the "owner" ages.

Funding retirement when we're young just makes it cheaper.

Just as long as no one is suggesting that Social Security benefits or taxes be reduced.

They'll be means-tested, which means they'll be reduced to zero universally. That's the point.

oj: Your propensity to willfully misinterpret comments is tiresome. Right now old people are indeed gov't dependents, because of the SS system. With the 401Hillary plan, they still will be, and I will be too. With SS privatization, they still will be, but I will not, neither now or in the future. There is nothing related to the Ownership Society in this plan. Nothing.

Bingo. There is no increase in dependency. Indeed, it ends said dependency in the long run. The rest is just anti-Hillary angst.

As I said, "Your propensity to willfully misinterpret comments is tiresome." Whether you are unable or unwilling to carry on a meaningful debate is irrelevant, because either way there's no point in carrying on with this anymore.

"Right now old people are indeed gov't dependents, because of the SS system. With the 401Hillary plan, they still will be..."

Since we all get to put away $5000.00 already into an IRA, I think that for best savings for retirement the politicians should allow all to contribute at same levels as current 401K rules allow. Sure would be nice to put away $20,000 into a 401K instead of $5000 into what max IRS rules allow. There is a huge injustice here. As a Disabled American who works, pays taxes and VOTES I am thankful that I have an employer that has let me continue working even with a disability. Too bad there is no employer sponsored plan here. I can only save for my retirement at IRA levels at least for now until I become further disabled.