Sorry, I cannot gather enough composure for a measured response to this fetid spew.

The current retirement system, Ghilarducci said, "exacerbates income and wealth inequalities" because tax breaks for voluntary retirement accounts are "skewed to the wealthy because it is easier for them to save, and because they receive bigger tax breaks when they do."

Lauding GRAs as a way to effectively increase retirement savings, Ghilarducci wrote that savings incentives are unequal for rich and poor families because tax deferrals "provide a much larger 'carrot' to wealthy families than to middle-class families -- and none whatsoever for families too poor to owe taxes."

GRAs would guarantee a fixed 3 percent annual rate of return [note to riders: a return would mean that you would actually beat inflation], although later in her article Ghilarducci explained that participants would not "earn a 3% real return in perpetuity." In place of tax breaks workers now receive for contributions and thus a lower tax rate, workers would receive $600 annually from the government, inflation-adjusted. For low-income workers whose annual contributions are less than $600, the government would deposit whatever amount it would take to equal the minimum $600 for all participants.

In a radio interview with Kirby Wilbur in Seattle on Oct. 27, 2008, Ghilarducci explained that her proposal doesn't eliminate the tax breaks, rather, "I'm just rearranging the tax breaks that are available now for 401(k)s and spreading -- spreading the wealth."

No shit? Ghilarducci must have been taking talking points from President-Elect Obama.

Ghilarducci said, "humans often lack the foresight, discipline, and investing skills required to sustain a savings plan." She cited the 2004 HSBC global survey on the Future of Retirement, in which she claimed that "a third of Americans wanted the government to force them to save more for retirement."

Umm, actually, I think a third of the Americans want to have more handed to them when they retire, and they are willing for it to be stolen from their neighbor. That same third believes that the cash they would give the all-knowing and resourceful government would be in the GRA account when they do retire. If Karlin's half are dumber than the average (he should have said median) idiot, then Ghilarducci's third are complete morons.

It gets worse...

"Moving to refundable tax credits for promoting socially worthwhile activities would be an important step toward enhancing progressivity in the tax code in a way that would improve economic efficiency and performance at the same time," Greenstein said, and "reducing barriers to labor organizing, preserving the real value of the minimum wage, and the other workforce security concerns . . . would contribute to an economy with less glaring and sharply widening inequality."

Progressivity you say? I guess having the top 5% of earners in America paying 95% of the tax load is not progressive enough. What this country needs is reduced barriers to unionization (see also: auto industry bail-out), real wage fixing value and more employer-based incentives.

Just remember, when you are ass-up with the Fed's weight behind you, you paid him to do it. He told you he was going to do it. And you still didn't think you were going to get fucked in the name of patriotism.