This is absolutely scary. Really is. About 230 years ago a bunch of colonialists revolted against the mightiest empire on the planet for a heck of a lot less than what we’re potentially going to see another group of tyrants attempt, should they truly be so arrogant. Here’s James Pethokoukis:

Eliminate 401(k)’s, IRAs, and other retirement plans. Democrats in the House are now talking openly about the longtime liberal dream of repealing the tax advantages of putting money into a 401(k) plan or other tax-advantaged retirement account. “The savings rate isn’t going up for the investment of $80 billion [in 401(k) tax breaks], we have to start to think about whether or not we want to continue to invest that $80 billion for a policy that’s not generating what we now say it should,” said Rep. Jim McDermott, a Democrat from Washington at a recent hearing, according to an industry trade paper.

Indeed, House Democrats recently invited Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor at the New School of Social Research, to testify before a subcommittee on her idea to eliminate the preferential tax treatment of the popular retirement plans. In place of 401(k) plans, she would have workers transfer their dough into government-created “guaranteed retirement accounts” with a 3 percent real return.

Not only would removing the preferential tax treatment of these vehicles raise investment taxes by $100 billion a year and affect Americans making less than $100,000, it would surely prompt many Americans, already shell-shocked by the market’s recent losses, to flee stocks. All this ignores the fact that there are trillions of dollars in American retirement accounts, and abandoning the higher-returning stock market at a probable bottom is classic financial foolishness. If you believe long term in the American economy, then you have to believe in the stock market. If you don’t, then you have to admit the government won’t be able to afford its promises anyway.

Almost as arrogant as the politicians on Capital Hill who think they know how to make investment and retirement decisions better than 300 million Americans is the aforementioned Prof. Teresa Ghilarducci. SHE has ALL the answers! But of course! After all, she is a professor! YOU are way too dumb to invest your OWN money.

[Workforce] 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.”

Under the current 401(k) system, investors are charged relatively high retail fees, Ghilarducci said.

“I want to spend our nation’s dollar for retirement security better. Everybody would now be covered” if the plan were adopted, Ghilarducci said.

I love that “would be required,” eh? We already have one “required” social security tax. Now, this “fairness” professor would add a second tax, at 5% of your income for a lousy 3% rate or return.

Everyone will be covered. Everyone will be equal… equally miserable.

“The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the name of liberalism, they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it happened.”

– Socialist Party of America presidential candidate Norman Thomas.

Read the whole thing.

Here’s Matthew Continetti:

Barack Obama’s running mate, Joe the Gaffe Machine, recently predicted that an international crisis will occur sometime during a President Obama’s first year in office. What will it be? Trouble in Iraq? Tension between China and Taiwan? State collapse in North Korea? Crisis in the Straits of Hormuz? War in central Africa? There are so many options. How about a Russian invasion of Ukraine?

Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner of France said Tuesday that Moscow had been issuing Russian passports in Crimea, a region in southern Ukraine where Russia’s Black Sea fleet is based. “We all know that they are handing out Russian passports over there,” Mr. Kouchner said in an interview with Kommersant, a Russian online newspaper. The government of Ukraine has said it wants the fleet to leave the Crimean base in Sevastopol when its lease runs out in 2017. But the Russian naval authorities have indicated that they want to retain the base. Mr. Kouchner said Russia might try to make advances in Crimea after the success of its military operations in Georgia in August.

When you talk to Obama supporters, in particular the younger ones, you get the sense that they believe all the world’s problems will disappear if Obama becomes president. Newsflash: They won’t.

UPDATE: Here’s another update by Andy McCarthy, basically saying what everyone else is — the L.A. Times did not adequately cover what Obama said at the Rashidi party even though he spoke for several minutes. McCarthy, by the way, successfully prosecuted Sheikh Omar Abdel-Rahman (the Blind Shiek) and several more of the 1993 WTC bombers, so I have to believe his instincts on Islamic fundamentalists is pretty good. I think people have a right to know what both Obama and Rashidi said.

Jeff Goldberg asks: “What is the L.A. Times Hiding?”

Already posted two posts below, Andy McCarthy notes: “The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape.“

In summary, a protected source sent the L.A. Times a tape of Barack Obama attending a 2003 going away party for a long-time fundraiser and activist for Palestinians. His name is Rashid Khalidi. Some say he’s a former member of Yasser Arafat’s Palestinian Liberation Organization (i.e., a former terrorist for the PLO). Maybe he was, maybe he wasn’t.

But even so, there’s several important points to be made here:

• Despite some of the more questionable polls, this is a close race (Bush was down 8 points to Gore at this time in 2000, by the way). Independents, particularly Jewish-American voters in a swing state like Florida, might care greatly about (1) why Barack Obama was at an event held for an activist for the Palestinian cause, perhaps a PLO member, (2) what Obama or Khalidi might have said at the event, and (3) why the L.A. Times is refusing to broadcast the tape if indeed it is much ado about nothing.
• The L.A. Times would never withhold such a tape from the public were Obama a Republican or had it been McCain at the event.
• The L.A. Times has a lot of nerve claiming that they’re trying to protect their source — funny considering the L.A. Times has no problem whatsoever blasting classified national security information on its front page, CIA assets in harm’s way be damned.
• The retort by the L.A. Times Jamie Gold, that, “The Times is not suppressing anything. Just the opposite — the L.A. Times brought the matter to light,” is also a joke considering the original story doesn’t seem to quote Obama saying much of anything.
• While all this probably says much more about how supportive the mainstream media is of Barack Obama than it does about Obama himself, there’s one little gem in the original article that really sheds light on Obama’s foreign policy inexperience and arrogance:

“Barack’s belief is that it’s important to understand other points of view, even if you can’t agree with them,” said his longtime political strategist, David Axelrod.

Israelis and Palestinians have been living side by side for thousands of years, their land lawfully partitioned since 1947 — they understand one another perfectly well. Their communication with one another is perfectly clear. That’s why it is so violent — they DO understand each other. So, for the Obama camp to think it can just waltz in Kumbayah style, ask these two peoples to share a Coca Cola and “understand the other’s point of view” is new heights of arrogance and naivety. Every president since Eisenhower has tried and failed. So will Obama.

The latest EDA [Economic Development Administration] photo-op shows Sen. Harry Reid presenting a goofy oversized check from the U.S. Treasury (i.e., taxpayers) to some of his Nevada constituents to help build a technology park to be named after (drum roll please)…Sen. Harry Reid.

The arrogance is breathtaking, until one remembers that we’re talking about a man who earns his living spending other people’s money (largely against their will). The picture also illustrates why it is difficult to get rid of even the most obvious losers in the federal budget.

– Tad DeHaven.

Here’s Andy McCarthy:

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor … who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat?

This is rich. The Politico writers admit their clear and unprofessional reporting bias — against John McCain and in favor of Barack Obama — but you see, it’s all McCain’s fault!

OK, let’s just get this over with: Yes, in the closing weeks of this election, John McCain and Sarah Palin are getting hosed in the press, and at Politico.

And, yes, based on a combined 35 years in the news business we’d take an educated guess — nothing so scientific as a Pew study — that Obama will win the votes of probably 80 percent or more of journalists covering the 2008 election. Most political journalists we know are centrists — instinctually skeptical of ideological zealotry — but with at least a mild liberal tilt to their thinking, particularly on social issues… As it happens, McCain’s campaign is going quite poorly and Obama’s is going well. Imposing artificial balance on this reality would be a bias of its own.

Oh, that’s all better then. The fact that months of negative and blatant slanted press against McCain might have produced a very difficult uphill battle for him to win the presidency never occurs to the geniuses at Politico (or the alphabet soup network media for that matter).

Hey, speaking of media bias, how’s this grab ya!: “John McCain’s campaign is demanding that the Los Angeles Times release a video of a party for a prominent Palestinian activist that Barack Obama attended in 2003.”

Really? The LA Times won’t even release it? Why not, if it’s not harmful to Barack? Wonder what Barack said at that party? Anything n-e-w-s-w-o-r-t-h-y there? Maybe. Maybe nothing. But we’ll never know, because the media will be too busy giving Barack Obama a lap dance for the next week.

Sure, I’ll agree that there’s something to be said for rhetorical lawyer talk or academicspeak, which Barack Obama’s defenders are saying this 2001 interview was. But this is hardly the sole case where Obama seems to be promoting European socialism.

Obama is not a fiscally moderate Bill Clinton. He’s not even fiscal leftist like Hillary Clinton. He’s the most fiscally left wing candidate to ever run for office in the United State, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders. His promise that he’ll “only” raise taxes on those making $250,000 (or $125k filed jointly) is just that — just words. He and Biden have now lowered the bar for defining “rich” — could be $200k, could be just $150k (or you and your spouse making $75k each). He supports single payer health care (i.e., hello offshoring, outsourcing and downsizing), and he’s going to hike up capital gains, meaning anyone who has a 401k or does some trading on the side gets a tax hike. According to this report, Barack Obama was endorsed by an Illinois socialist party. In his own words, he’s a socialist.

Change? Obama voters, at least the Clintonite wing, might get more than they bargined for.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone…

[Byron York] One of the things I’ve seen at Republican rallies is that people just don’t believe Barack Obama when he says he’ll raise taxes only on those who make more than $250,000 a year.  It’s not that these people make that much money or even think they’ll make that much money sometime in the next four years.  It’s that they believe Obama, once in office, would lower the threshold and raise taxes on people who make less than $250,000.

Obama’s position in the past was that he would raise taxes on families making more than $250,000 a year and individuals making more than $200,000.  But in his new ad, “Defining Moment,” he seems to lower it to $200,000 for families. “Here’s what I’ll do as president,” Obama says in the ad.  “To deal with our current emergency I’ll launch a rescue plan for the middle class That begins with a tax cut for 95 percent of working Americans. If you have a job, pay taxes and make less than $200,000 a year, you’ll get a tax cut.” That seems kind of ambiguous, but the graphic on the screen says clearly: “Famlies making less than $200,000 get tax cut.” Now, the McCain campaign is pointing out something that Joe Biden said in a Pennsylvania TV interview yesterday:

What we’re saying is that $87 billion tax break doesn’t need to go to people making an average of 1.4 million, it should go like it used to. It should go to middle class people — people making under $150,000 a year.”

This morning, in Hershey, Pennsylvania, McCain started pushing hard:

Senator Obama has made a lot of promises. First he said people making less than 250,000 dollars would benefit from his plan, then this weekend he announced in an ad that if you’re a family making less than 200,000 dollars you’ll benefit — but yesterday, right here in Pennsylvania, Senator Biden said tax relief should only go to “middle class people — people making under 150,000 dollars a year.” It’s interesting how their definition of rich has a way of creeping down. At this rate, it won’t be long before Senator Obama is right back to his vote that Americans making just 42,000 dollars a year should get a tax increase. We can’t let that happen.

People who think Barack Obama is going to be a third term of Bill Clinton are in store for quite a shock I think.

What double standard?

Democratic vice-presidential candidate Joe Biden comes off a little defensive during some aggressive questioning by WFTV reporter Barbara West. Her points — that Barack Obama seems entirely comfortable mimicking European socialist tax policies, that he’s tied closely to ACORN, and that Biden himself is calling Obama inexperienced — were entirely valid. There was nothing beyond the pale about them.

(Biden lies through his teeth, by the way. See this from the Wall Street Journal: “More recently, the Obama campaign paid $832,000 to an Acorn affiliate. The campaign initially told the Federal Election Commission this money was for “staging, sound, lighting.” It later admitted the cash was to get out the vote.”)

The Obama-Biden campaign has (naturally!) reacted by refusing any futher interviews with the station.

My question is: no matter how clumsy Mrs. West’s questions were, how were her questions any different than what any Republican candidate must field on any given day?

The single time where Democrats face some difficult questions from the mainstream media and they pout, taking their political ball and running home.

Cry me a river, Joe: Whaaaaaa! I’m Joe Biden! I’m entitled to softballs! How dare you?!? NO MORE INTERVIEWS!