OnTheIssuesLogo

Allen Buckley on Social Security

2004 former Libertarian Senate challenger (GA)

 


I do not support any Notch reform proposals

Q: Notch babies are those individuals who receive lower Social Security benefits because they were born in the years 1917 and immediately thereafter. Do you support Notch Reform?

A: No, I do not support any Notch reform proposals. A bipartisan Congressional commission decided no inequity exists. Please note that you probably will not receive such a clean answer from my Republican and Democratic opponents.

Source: Senior Citizens League Guide to the 2008 US Senate Campaigns , Oct 10, 2008

Tie COLA to senior spending instead of labor cost increases

Q: We strongly believe that the Social Security cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) that seniors are currently receiving does not accurately reflect how they must spend their money. Do you support COLA Fairness, based on the consumer price index (CPI) for seniors?

A: Under ordinary circumstances, yes, I would support conversion to a CPI-E COLA. I would do so because I believe it would be logical and fair. But inequities exist in the Social Security system. If the numbers worked under my proposal (as outlined on my website, www.buckleyforsenate.com), then I would favor such a change. I say with respect to my social Security fix proposal that annual benefits increases should be tied to a price index tied to seniors spending instead of being indexed by labor cost increases.

Source: Senior Citizens League Guide to the 2008 US Senate Campaigns , Oct 10, 2008

Invest Trust Fund in stocks and bonds

Q: Do you support Social Security Reform or Privatization?

A: My proposal: First, unlike past and current practice, the surpluses that are expected to run through 2017 would not be loaned to the federal government for IOUs. Instead, they would be invested in stocks and bonds and similar pension assets, with asset managers paid based on productivity, and with individuals given the right to invest their shares of the annual surpluses (instead of being invested by asset managers), with commensurate adjustments to benefits (increases or reductions) based on individual investment returns. If an annual return of 8% was experienced, the surpluses would carry forward and cover costs through 2025.

Second, a national referendum would be held to decide whether the tax rate should be increased from 6.2 to 7.0 percent.

Third, dollar-for-dollar matching contributions would be added for people born after 1985, on the first 2% of compensation contributed to an IRA or pension plan.

Source: Senior Citizens League Guide to the 2008 US Senate Campaigns , Oct 10, 2008

Matching accounts for people born after 1985

My views on Social Security: Matching accounts should be added for people born after 1985, to make up for 150% of foregone Social Security benefits.
Source: Email interview on 2004 Senate race with OnTheIssues.org , Aug 5, 2004

Privatization of Social Security is impractical

Q: What is your position on Social Security opt-outs and privatization?

A: I’m against privatization of Social Security because I think it is impractical. In other words, I don’t think its practical without incurring debt, and I am against incurring any more debt.

Source: Email interview on 2004 Senate race with OnTheIssues.org , Jun 28, 2004

Invest annual surpluses via professional asset managers

Invest annual surpluses that will exist until 2018 with professional asset managers, who are paid based on success. The remainder of the problem should be solved by a national referendum, with the people deciding whether benefits should be reduced with no tax changes, taxes should be increased with no benefit reductions or a combination of benefit reductions and tax increases should be applied.
Source: Email interview on 2004 Senate race with OnTheIssues.org , Jun 11, 2004

National referendum to resolve Social Security dilemmas

The problems of Social Security and Medicare need to be resolved, NOW, through a national referendum. Although many persons wish to terminate Social Security, or, alternatively, allow “opt-outs,” unfortunately such possibilities do not appear to be feasible because: (a) Social Security is a “pay as you go” system and there is no trust fund of assets accumulated to pay benefits; and (b) the demographics of the U.S. do not permit a “freeze” or termination of the System because all workers’ tax payments will be necessary to fund the benefits of the baby-boomers. However, consideration needs to be given to selling non-essential government real property, other than the national parks, over a period of many years to reduce the tax rate. Consideration should be given to allowing Social Security payees to opt-out of benefits in exchange for proportionately increased benefits for a future beneficiary or beneficiaries, such as a child or children.
Source: 2004 Senate campaign website, BuckleyForSenate.org, “Views” , May 18, 2004

Other candidates on Social Security: Allen Buckley on other issues:
GA Gubernatorial:
Andrew Hunt
Jason Carter
Nathan Deal
GA Senatorial:
Amanda Swafford
David Perdue
Jack Kingston
Karen Handel
Michelle Nunn
Paul Broun
Phil Gingrey

GA politicians
GA Archives

Retiring in 2014 election:
GA:Chambliss(R)
IA:Harkin(D)
MI:Levin(D)
MT:Baucus(D)
NE:Johanns(R)
SD:Johnson(D)
WV:Rockefeller(D)

Retired as of Jan. 2013:
AZ:Kyl(R)
CT:Lieberman(D)
HI:Akaka(D)
ND:Conrad(D)
NM:Bingaman(D)
TX:Hutchison(R)
VA:Webb(D)
WI:Kohl(D)
Senate races Nov. 2016:
AK: Murkowski(R) vs.Metcalfe(D) vs.Stevens(L) vs.Lamb(R)
AL: Shelby(R) vs.Crumpton(D) vs.Bowman(R)
AR: Boozman(R) vs.Eldridge(D) vs.Gilbert(L) vs.Beebe(D)
AZ: McCain(R) vs.Ward(R) vs.Kirkpatrick(D) vs.Mealer(I)
CA: Sanchez(D) vs.Harris(D) vs.Chavez(R) vs.Del Beccaro(R) vs.Sundheim(R) vs.Brannon(R)
CO: Bennet(D) vs.Glenn(R) vs.Neville(R) vs.Frazier(R) vs.Keyser(R) vs.Littleton(R)
CT: Blumenthal(D) vs.Carter(R) vs.Orchulli(R) vs.Kudlow(R) vs.Wolf(R) vs.Foley(R)
FL: Rubio(R) vs.Murphy(D) vs.Grayson(D) vs.Keith(D) vs.DeSantis(R) vs.Cantera(R)
GA: Isakson(R) vs.Barksdale(D) vs.Buckley(L) vs.Barrow(D) vs.Grayson(R)
HI: Schatz(D) vs.Carroll(R) vs.Pirkowski(R) vs.Cavasso(R)
IA: Grassley(R) vs.Judge(D) vs.Fiegen(D) vs.Hogg(D) vs.Krause(D)
ID: Crapo(R) vs.Sturgill(D) vs.Pro-Life(C) vs.LaRocco(D)
IL: Kirk(R) vs.Duckworth(D) vs.Harris(D) vs.Zopp(D)
IN: Bayh(D) vs.Young(R) vs.Stutzman(R) vs.Hill(D) vs.Holcomb(R) vs.Bosma(R)
KS: Moran(R) vs.Wiesner(D) vs.Orman(I)
KY: Paul(R) vs.Gray(D) vs.Conway(D)
LA: Fleming(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Campbell(D) vs.Boustany(R) vs.Maness(R) vs.Cao(R)
MD: Van Hollen(D) vs.Szeliga(R) vs.Flowers(G) vs.Douglas(R) vs.Steele(R)
MO: Blunt(R) vs.Kander(D)
NC: Burr(R) vs.Ross(D) vs.Brannon(R) vs.Haugh(L) vs.Rey(D) vs.Wright(R)
ND: Hoeven(R) vs.Glassheim(D) vs.Marquette(L)
NH: Ayotte(R) vs.Hassan(D) vs.Rubens(R)
NV: Cortez-Masto(D) vs.Heck(R) vs.Angle(R)
NY: Schumer(D) vs.Long(R)
OH: Portman(R) vs.Strickland(D) vs.Sittenfeld(D)
OK: Lankford(R) vs.Workman(D) vs.Johnson(D)
OR: Wyden(D) vs.Callahan(R) vs.Stine(D)
PA: Toomey(R) vs.McGinty(D) vs.Stern(R) vs.Sestak(D) vs.Fetterman(D)
SC: Scott(R) vs.Dixon(D)
SD: Thune(R) vs.Williams(D)
UT: Lee(R) vs.Snow(D) vs.Swinton(D)
VT: Leahy(D) vs.Milne(R)
WA: Murray(D) vs.Vance(R)
WI: Johnson(R) vs.Feingold(D) vs.Lorge(R)
Abortion
Budget/Economy
Civil Rights
Corporations
Crime
Drugs
Education
Energy/Oil
Environment
Families
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Immigration
Jobs
Principles
Social Security
Tax Reform
Technology
War/Peace
Welfare

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Affiliations
Policy Reports
Group Ratings
 
Search for...





Page last updated: Aug 29, 2016