OUR VIEW: Sessions’ plan makes sense but is bad policy
To be honest, we are trying to figure out exactly what part of Sen.
Jeff Sessions’ savings plan qualifies it as a fiscally conservative
piece of government policy.
For certain, what Sessions proposes makes good economic sense for
individuals. People would be wise to place 1 percent of their annual
earnings into a savings account. Being able to do so in an account
that is free of taxes and cannot be used by the federal government
for any other purpose would be even better.
However, for the government to tell an individual how they are to
manage their finances is an intrusion we cannot afford. If the
government wants to spend our money, then they can tax us. If they
want to put it away in savings, then they can increase Social
Security requirements. But to require that individuals invest a
specific amount of money seems to us to be a drastic infringement on
Sessions is an idealogue conservative who favors less government &045;
save when it comes to regulating society’s social norms. Furthermore,
he passes himself off as a fiscal conservative. How, then, can this
come from him?
Certain specifics of the plan, which have not been formally
introduced, are also worrisome. It would allow individuals to
increase their tax-free contributions if they so desire. That’s one
heck of a tax shelter for wealthier folks, which means a decrease in
tax revenues our government can use to fund necessary programs.
Not to mention, the money is tied up in an account until the person
turns 65. What of an emergency? What happens at death? What about the
poor who live hand-to-mouth and who can’t afford that 1 percent?
We might favor an elective program with a low investment cap, but not