Covered at Reason 24/7: Obama Wants To Limit Retirement Accounts

Complaining that "some wealthy
individuals are able to accumulate many millions of dollars in
these accounts," the Obama administration announced a plan to cap
the total sum of any individual's retirement accounts at $3
million. Stashing cash beyond that point, the administration
insists, builds sums "substantially more than is needed to fund
reasonable levels of retirement saving." The administration's
argument seems to be based on the use of the word "million,"
implying that only nasty rich people would want to accumulate such
a hoard. But is that true? How much is enough for "reasonable
levels of retirement saving."

As it turns out, that's one of the toughest questions to answer
for retirement planning. Many advisors suggest you base your
retirement savings on something like 70 percent of your
pre-retirement income, multiplied by how many years you expect to
live. So ... Just when do you plan to kick off? As
one article on retirement planning puts it, "basing your
retirement needs on income is like basing your fuel needs on the
size of your car’s gas tank. What really matters is how far you
have to go and what kind of gas mileage you get." Part of that "gas
mileage" for retirement planning includes inflation. By the time
you retire, will $3 million buy luxury? Or a sandwich?

From
Bloomberg Businessweek:

President Barack Obama’s budget proposal would cap
multimillion-dollar tax-favored retirement accounts like the one
held by Mitt Romney, his Republican rival in 2012.

Obama’s budget plan, to be unveiled April 10, would prohibit
taxpayers from accumulating more than $3 million in an individual
retirement account. That proposal would generate $9 billion in
revenue for the Treasury over the next decade, according to a White
House statement released today. ...

Brian Graff, executive director and chief executive officer of
the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries, said
his group will “vigorously oppose” the idea.

“It is a ‘plan killer,’” he said in an e-mailed statement. “As
business owners reach the cap, they will lose their incentive to
maintain a plan, and either shut down the plan or greatly reduce
benefits. This would leave workers with a greatly diminished plan
or without any plan at all.”

Follow this story and more at Reason 24/7.

If you have a story that would be of interest to Reason's
readers please let us know by emailing the 24/7 crew at
24_7@reason.com, or tweet us stories at @reason247.

Read More

Threat of Islamic Militant Comeback in Mali Threatening French Withdrawal Plan

The French may not be leaving
Mali as quickly as they would like.

French President
Francois Hollande had said that he wants the number of French
troops in Mali to be cut to 1,000 by December from the roughly
4,000 troops that are there now. United Nations Secretary-General

Ban Ki-moon has said that a UN peacekeeping force could be made
up of African soldiers that are already assisting Malian and French
forces.

However, despite plans for a UN peacekeeping force recent
attacks by Islamic militants and the political situation in Mali
mean that the French troop reduction could be delayed.

From
Reuters:

Last weekend Islamist militants launched their second attack on
Timbuktu in a fortnight, shortly after French President Francois
Hollande insisted the elections must take place as scheduled and
unveiled the plan to slash troop numbers.

Launched in January, the French-led offensive quickly succeeded
in pushing a mix of Islamists out of their northern strongholds and
remote mountain bases, hitting the local leadership of the al
Qaeda-linked groups.

But new clashes have followed a handful of suicide attacks and
raids on towns won back from the rebels, underscoring the task of
securing the country as France prepares
to hand over to the Malian army and a 7,000-strong regional African
force.

The nightmare scenario is that of a repeat of the Afghan war,
where Taliban insurgents have prevented a full pull-out of NATO-led
troops after a 13-year conflict that has cost tens of thousands of
lives.

While it is understandable that the French would like to avoid
their own Afghan war there is the possibility that Islamic
militants will return to northern Mali after the number of French
soldiers is reduced. It is easy to see why those living in northern
Mali who experienced the rule of Islamic militants would not be
reassured by a mere 1,000 French troops, a U.N. peacekeeping force,
and a disorganized Malian military that is facing accusations of

human rights violations.

As well as the possibility of Islamic militants returning there
is also the ongoing issue of
slavery to worry about, with some Tuaregs who are seeking
independence in northern Mali but who have distanced themselves
from Islamic militants continuing the practice of slavery. Despite
the French-led intervention 250,000 people still live in conditions
of slavery in Mali.

From
The Guardian:

The recent French intervention in Mali does seem to be paying
some security dividends with most of the Islamist fighters driven
out of the main urban areas. But many slaves and ex-slaves say they
still do not feel safe, since a new Tuareg group, the Islamic
Movement for Azawad, is in control of the remote town of
Kidal. 

The unfortunate reality for the French government is that if
they wish to leave Mali in a safer, more secure, and politically
stable situation they may have to stay longer than they initially
anticipated, which will almost certainly have effects on the
government’s popularity in France.

Read More

North Korea Missile Plan Targets Washington, Los Angeles, Austin and Hawaii

The United States sent two
nuclear-capable B-2 bombers to the Korean Peninsula
yesterday in response to North Korea shutting down the military
hotline with South Korea on
Wednesday. Today, North Korea responded
by announcing it was preparing a missile strike plan against the
United States. A photo (at right)
released by the North Korean newspaper Rodang
 appears to identify Washington, DC, California, Austin, Texas
and Hawaii as targets. Leon Panetta, then the U.S. Secretary of
Defense, said
last April that America was “within an inch of war” with North
Korea and had to be careful about what it says and does that might
escalate the situation. Tensions have been rising since North
Korea’s latest round of missile tests began
last December. Earlier this month the totalitarian regime
declared the Korean War armistice signed nearly sixty years ago

null and void, something it had most recently done in 2009, and
six times since 1994.

The White House, for its part, responded today by saying the
U.S.
would not be intimidated and can defend itself and its allies.
However, as Ron Paul noted
earlier this week, some U.S. actions, like the public military
exercises and the push at the UN for new sanctions are helping
exacerbate the situation. North Korea has just one real ally on the
planet, China, and even that is barely so. Its reactions to tension
over the last few months have been to tell North Korea, or North
Korea and South Korea, as the case may be, to
simmer down. Russia’s foreign minister, meanwhile, warned today
of a “vicious circle” that could
spiral out of control. That’s highly unlikely. Instead, North
Korea’s saber-rattling, and the Western response to it, fulfills
the need Kim Jong Un has for attention and for an external enemy to
use as a scapegoat for the self-inflicted decades-long tragedy that
is North Korean society.

Read More