Clinton to propose universal 401K plan

Posted: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:29 PM by Domenico Montanaro
Filed Under: Republicans

From NBC’s Athena Jones
Clinton will lay out a proposal to provide a universal 401K plan for everyone, at a speech today in Webster City, Iowa. Her staff is calling it the second-biggest policy rollout of the campaign in terms of cost and the number of people it would cover.

Under the plan, everyone would have access to a 401K and would be able to get matching funds from the government. It is part of Clinton's effort to increase retirement security by promoting savings and investment. Clinton's policy advisors will explain the plan in detail after the speech.

The senator kicked off her two-day "Middle Class Express" bus tour in Cedar Rapids Monday with an economic speech aimed at drawing a distinction between herself and Republicans ahead of tonight's GOP debate on economic issues.

EMAIL THIS

Comments

This would be interesting if its workable. She's clearly showing how she's capable of thinking outside of the box, and that she has fresh new ideas, despite the hillary haters' hysteria that she's stale and nothing new.

Pat, Huntington, NY (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:41 PM)

I thought Bush said the best way to fight Al Qaeda was to go out and spend. If we save are we helping Al Qaeda? Will saving hurt the economy? If people are able to retire earlier and not have to work until they die won't that make the Social Security problem worse? Is this the first step on the slippery slope to socialized savings?

studying to be a nuanced Republican (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:45 PM)

Put a $3 a cup sin tax on starbucks and other silly over priced coffee, and let's talk. If the coffee drinkers squeal about it ask them "Why do you hate the children?"

got a light? (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:45 PM)

sure sounds a whole lot like Bush's Social Security Partial Privatization plan.......

If it's not, then I guess she's looking for another way to fund this with NEW money???

Unless she plans to help pay for this by incorporating into the SS plan, I don't see how this is anything other than a ploy to increase the government's grip people's lives.

sick of "washington" (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:50 PM)

WE love you Hillary! You are going to be our next president. Go Hill!

Students at UNF (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:53 PM)

I'd be for that, unless it involves cutting Social Security.

Increase taxed for those over the current limit first.

Bill Gates pays no more than someone making 100,000, and that's not right.

Steve (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:56 PM)

Matching funds from the government?!?!

Sign me up!!!

More free stuff!!

Fed Freeman (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 12:59 PM)

I am about to enter the presidential race, we will call our 3rd party the Goober party. First off, my promise is to give everyone $5000 a year for health care insurance, no legislation is needed, second I will set it up so everyone 50 and older is able to retire comfortably. I will end the war, and work for peace thru out the world. trust me, i can do it. I am the only qualified candidate. How will i pay for all this? trust me and i will tell you after i am elected Thank you

Frank Furter soon to be president (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:02 PM)

Complete and utter nonsense. There's a sucker born every minute because you believe this crap. Do the liberals all of sudden fully trust the government because Hilary says it is ok? What a bunch of fools to believe they will match your money. Get a relaity check, folks.

John, Houston, TX (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:12 PM)

I like her style. I don't hear any others promoting new and beneficial programs for the middle class. Keep kicking ass Hillary - all the way to the top.

Brian, Cedar Hill, TX (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:17 PM)

It's very evident, that most of these polls showing Hillary already coranated, are misleading. Case in Point on this blog from saturday. 427 comment's ( mostly negative towards Hillary)posted concerning her TIT-4-tat with an intelligent voter from Iowa.Sure, there are gonna be ( Van's, Susan's, BB's etc,etc,etc)on all these boards, singing the praises of Hillary. That's their right!!!! However, it's also OUR right ( for now) to continue to point out that the media darling does'nt conform to ALL American's way of thinking.She is trying to use the same Anti-Constitution tactics, that have been used by GWB.FYI, i'm a die hard Democrat, & can see thru the fog of what awaits our great country, if the Electorate does'nt wake up. IF we want Real change from the last 7 years, Hillary is'nt the Answer we're looking for. " DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER

Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:18 PM)

Rick,kyjelly, Be quiet please!You make little sense.

G (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:33 PM)

I already have a 401K Hillary. Thank you. Why won't liberals work for their money anymore?

jerry/corpus christi texas (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:38 PM)

I thought using Gov't money for private funds like Bush proposed was a "risky scheme." Or is it OK now that Hillary has proposed it?

Cheer for this only if you do not believe in yourself and your ability to make your own choices.

K., Austin (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:42 PM)

Pat, Huntington, NY / 'This would be interesting if its workable. She's clearly showing how she's capable of thinking outside of the box, and that she has fresh new ideas, despite the hillary haters' hysteria that she's stale and nothing new.'

hillary does not think period, this is obviously a design of her corporate owners to funnel more money into the stock market where it can be stolen from the citizenry, hillary is nothing more than a puppet for her lobbyist owners to continue the republican dream of complete elimination of the middle class, suck money away from the working poor into the stock market, then make it disappear, people better take their eyes off of hillary's vagina and look at the certain blight she will bestow on the average american, she is a clone of rudy giuliani and people refuse to admit that only because of her gender.

she has chosen to surround herself with elitist criminals and the press who are owned by the same corporations that own hillary sweep it under the rug, people turn their heads the other way as if everything is just fine because she is the only female candidate, a female candidate with the integrity required for the job will come, but this women has one persons and one persons only best interests at heart, hillary’s

MK,MO (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:47 PM)

Heaven forbid we try to encourage americans to save. Again, we can pour billions of dollars down a worthless black hole in Iraq, but cons cry a river when someone suggests programs working middle class americans can participate in.

There is a crisis in savings. The savings rate in this country is NEGATIVE and the average 401K balance for all age groups is under 50K. How in the hell do we think people are going to retire when they get old? Again, at least it's an idea geared towards working people.

Amazed, Atlanta (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:51 PM)

Don't you just love politicians bearing gifts for you? Painless social security, painless medicare, painless pills, painless retirement and if you are any kind of a gooberment employee its for life...its not just hillary, bush conned you into thinking you could fight two wars, cut taxes and put the diff on the grandkids tab

Rick, WS, NC (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:51 PM)

This will not help those that live paycheck to paycheck. They can not afford to put money into a 401K.

This is to help the stock broker industry, So like Citigroup that has give Bill Clinton $550,000 for speeches, this goes straight into the pockets of the Clintons. Also Lehman Brothers that has paid Bill $150,000. Also Goldman Sachs that paid Bill $275,000, etc. etc.

Hillary's personal wealth is tied to the only people that will benefit from this proposal. This is Republican lite.

MR, Seattle (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:52 PM)

Is Hillary nuts? She wants the government to manage one big 401K for the country? Who is going to pay for the government matching? I guess the working middle class will be stuck with the burden of this one too. No thanks. It's getting to expensive to work.

Kate Monte, Chalfont, PA (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 1:57 PM)

The senator kicked off her two-day "Middle Class Express" . . .

Just an interesting note. In one of the video clips MSNBC is showing, Clinton is walking in front of the "Middle Class Express" bus from the rear. Surely enough, Clinton is standing in front of the word ASS.

Please post this, it's not so bad in context. I will update if I ever figure out which clip its in.

--NSMSNBC (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:02 PM)

I love how HIllary stir up people by talking about ideas. At least people are talking about solutions to our problems. She is making the republicians talk about these thing, instead of giving out slogans.

Because before it was just static, nothing new except tinkle down crap.

Jeanette (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:04 PM)

WE love you Frank Furter soon to be president! You are going to be our next president. Go Frank Furter!

Students without a clue (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:04 PM)

Yes, more free money! Where does she find it all! Even Chavez couldn't have thought of this one. Soon the government will be paying for it all and all we'll have to do is cash the check. Thank God for Democrats. I assume the money is coming from the rich people or those smokers? Where else could it come from. I love this women.

Welfare State (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:09 PM)

Rick - Berating and insulting Hillary is the in thing to do, you know.

Just out of curiosity, what "anti-Constitution" tactics is Hillary using?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:14 PM)

Matching funds from the Govt?

Again, people, were is this coming from? Hopefully, with social security taxes. I'm covered by a 401k with employer matches, but if hillary will match my FICA taxes in a govt 401k, I'd be all over it. Damn, I could retire at 50.

Bruce, NV (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:18 PM)

Hillary's internal polling showed her $5000 "baby bond" idea sinking like a stone. I don't need a bribe, Senator; I need to know how you plan on having Social Security / Medicare survive the coming baby boomer retirement tsunami...

Adam Columbus, OH (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:25 PM)

Well, Well, All in one week this lunatic Clinton has presented her personal bond and now how to screw up your 401K.

Why is it the clowns of the Washington paper Hanging liars club can even do what they promised the people when they were elected?? They ""SHE"" don't stay in Washington long enough to do what she was sent there for. So the two faced liar again side stepped working on real issues America is faced with ""Illegals"" Poverty,Homeless,Failing industry infrastructure"".

This lunatic clinton wants to throw more gas on the fire!!! A total Demo head case!!!!

Hard Truth / AZ (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:49 PM)

BB& G ( one & the same)I make no sense to either of you because your head is Hillary's butt to far to see the Real world. You Only cheer for hillary because she's female. Are you a Racist & a feminist?Bush lite is all she is & your Not Knowelgable enough to realize THAT."DELUSIONAL THINKING BY COMMON SENSE AMERICAN'S IS OVER"

Rick,ky (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 2:59 PM)

jerry, you need to learn how to be a compassionate conservative. You shouldn't just say I've got mine, thank you. You should add "and I wish the rest of you the best of luck"

nuanced (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:00 PM)

I would be interested in finding out how the 401 k plan will differ from the now corporate version which is based on the stock market. I now invest a percentage which is split into many sectors of the market which is then either going to make money or loose depending on which way the wind blows. Now I know who controls the stock market and it is not Joe the working man, but the corporate entities like ENRON, HEALTHSOUTH, etched. Etc. This all means that in the end I am entrusting my future to the wolf! Why not re-introduce her husband’s original idea of government hands off on SS. It would bolster itself and then no more problems, but we know who nixed that idea.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:07 PM)

Jerry, we once had a Social security bill that helped for a while too, but it was not long that the big old government decided it was bogging down the banking institution so much so that they wanted to assist in re focusing the money in other areas. They even promised to pay it back with interest. How long do you think it is going to take before corporate run 401 k it exploited; oops too late!

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:17 PM)

got a light: Brilliant. One of the most forwardthinking solutions I have so far heard. As George Carlin once observed, ''children are overrated''. Just so. Rather,we should be seeing not simply the agony of latte-gulpers,but increased taxes placed on the owners and renters of GULFSTREAM jets,a two-buck-tax a pop for Jackson Browne tickets,use fees for Central Park, ten-dollar-an-hour parking in Pacific Heights,and a 100% tax on any ticket purchased by any person who wishes to see Eve Enslen wax eloquent on the glories of the female vagina.
If this is getting out of hand,so are these stupid tax and spend schemes which are out of the gate even before election day. No more personal responsibility whatever. Cradle to grave socialism under a flag that is only missing a hammer and sickle. 50-cent per gallon gas taxes,perhaps even more. Same deal on heating oil. Increased SCHIP ceilings even if your dad happens to be a multimillionare Princeton benefactor.[liberals claim Bush was lying about the ''82 grand''. Liberals are also caught lying about the vastly increased cost,into the hundreds of billions with no oversight. A free-for-all that even an Iraqi parliament member would envy].Then theres the subprime homeowner bailout,despite finding that the most impacted persons are thirty-somethings with college educations,who purchased out of their league in tony neighborhoods[NPR Morning Edition,Sept.11,2007]. Then there are the ''baby bonds''[without bothering to add that millions of children of illegal immigrants,which the Dems have no plans to do anything about,would get the dough,again,into the billions of taxpayer dollars while the flood across our borders continue]. Now this crap. We should observe here that fans of Ron Paul would do well to notice that this man is dead set against every single one of the schemes,including SCHIP,now being pushed by the socialists.

Lee Holmes (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:24 PM)

I noticed a curious thing in comments above. WE have a clear division of haters and lovers. No middle of the way thinkers. Has any ever considered the fact that she is only selling the bill of goods she can to pacify both sides of the isle? What she can sell and what she can deliver are two very different things. I mean we as Americans have sat through 7+ years of the great unifier to see that promise has never come to be ,and has only created a chasm so deep there seem to be no return. So maybe she is trying to be bipartisan.

Jeffersonian Don (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:36 PM)

Never support a program that promises something to everyone. The way I see it, the poor people won't be able to contribute so then we have to "give" it too them. Then it won't be enough to retire on so we will have to "give" them more.
We can't pay for what we have already promised (Social security, mediicare etc). I don't see the logic in promising more.

This woman scares me.

I might be inclined to support it as a replacement to Social Security but we know that won't happen.
I am curious how she can propose this when she won't support a partial privitazation of the current system.

Greg K., Charleston SC (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:39 PM)

Private accounts like this were proposed by Bill Clinton in 1998 and the GOP Congress shot them down. This is the solution to the low American personal savings rate crisis that all economists recommend. It causes no harm to Social Security, costs the worker an affordable 1% of salary which matched plus the worker gets a tax "deduction" just as he would with a 401k contribution. The systems adds very few government workers as it is the same as the Federal Government Employee Savings Plan and would use that structure. As with the Health plan where the emphasis is on giving the citizen the maximum number of choices - including keeping his own current insurance - this lets the worker chose any selection of funds from the same selection of diversified funds given to Federal Employees in their savings plan. Easy to implement, not costly at all, and it solves a major problem. Looks like Hillary has hit another home run.

William Chirolas, Newton, Massachusetts (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 3:51 PM)

Actually Hill came up with a brilliant idea on this one. She gets to promise the world and it won't cost a dime. Huh??? Here's my logic... where I work we have a 401k plan. And everyone here is well paid (oil industry). Even so, many people still live "pay check to pay check" and don't take advantage of the 7% matching company 401k because they can't manage their finances well enough to save anything. If well paid, educated people don't take advantage, what makes anyone think the "working poor" will do so?

So Hill gets to sound magnanamous to the millions of minions but it won't ever cost anything. Brilliant!!!

Lost in Alaska (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 4:42 PM)

Why is it only proposed for married couples. Why the animosity towards singles? Don't they deserver a comfortable retirement?

If people aren't saving it now because they have to pay the bills how is saving it with matching funds in a locked account going to work?

And when exactly is she going to take a stand on these ideas. It seems she wants to throw out ideas until the polls show the public likes one then stick with it. Where exactly does she stand on any of this.

How about it Hilary, come up with some ideas you actually stand behind.

Relbert Cognal, Hell, Mi (Sent Tuesday, October 09, 2007 7:35 PM)

im a liberal and i think this is stupid.
it does sound a lot like bush's privatization
of SS. WHY... well the goal of both plans is
to put your retirement funds on wall street.
wonder who is giving hillary campaign cash?
.....mmm wall street????
and the plan just seems stupid. the gov't matching your funds??? where does the gov't get that money...somebody has to pay for it.

sean kcmo (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:34 PM)

How STUPID ARE AMERICANS that they can let Hillary Hag get away with a Social Secutiry Plan that DOES NOT include FINACIAL SOLVENCY?! Right Wing Bush-Cheney Republican Fascists have LOST, STOLEN & WASTED OVER $4.5 TRILLION SINCE 2000 ALONE! THEY must be required to put in the LION'S SHARE OF FUNDS TO ACHIEVE SSI SOLVENCY BY 2012 & OIL COMPANIES MUST BE NATIONALIZED. Then and only then will the American Republic be redeemed and 'Rise from the Ashes' of the Constitution the BUSH-CHENEY CRIME FAMILY burned 7 years ago in the Election 2000 COUP!

Joseph Conrad (Sent Wednesday, October 10, 2007 11:51 PM)

Raise the taxes of the "bush pioneers", and call it a sin-tax to pay for their war and this new 401k program. Eliminate the $7 billion/yr. state welfare program to israel.

Wade F. Godot, Washington, DC-taxation without representation (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 6:46 AM)

I'm confused...will everyone really be able to get matching funds friom the government? Will every citizen qualify? No age or earned income requirements? That's what they seem to be saying. At one point the Bush administration wanted to switch all IRAs and 401Ks over to Roth type accounts with, eliminating the tax deduction that goes along with the initial contribution. This was an effort to increase current tax revenues.

Gene South NYC (Sent Thursday, October 11, 2007 7:53 AM)

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.

David DeVries (Sent Monday, October 22, 2007 3:14 PM)

SEND A COMMENT

PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to the blog, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):

Your name, city and state (John Doe, Seattle, Wash.):

Your e-mail address (jdoe@msnbc.com):

Your website (it's okay if you don't have one):

Remember me? (We'll keep it private) Remember me?

TRACKBACKS

Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/trackback.aspx?PostID=403550