|
Johnny Isakson on Social Security
Republican Jr Senator; previously Rep (GA-6)
|
|
Voted YES on establishing reserve funds & pre-funding for Social Security.
Voting YES would:- require that the Federal Old Age and Survivors Trust Fund be used only to finance retirement income of future beneficiaries;
- ensure that there is no change to benefits for individuals born before January 1, 1951
- provide participants with the benefits of savings and investment while permitting the pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits; and
- ensure that the funds made available to finance such legislation do not exceed the amounts estimated to be actuarially available.
Proponents recommend voting YES because:
Perhaps the worst example of wasteful spending is when we take the taxes people pay for Social Security and, instead of saving them, we spend them on other things. Even worse than spending Social Security on other things is we do not count it as debt when we talk about the deficit every year. So using the Social Security money is actually a way to hide even more wasteful spending without counting it as debt.
This Amendment would change that.
Opponents recommend voting NO because:
This amendment has a fatal flaw. It leaves the door open for private Social Security accounts by providing participants with the option of "pre-funding of at least some portion of future benefits."
This body has already closed the door on the President's ill-conceived plan for private Social Security accounts. The opposition to privatization is well-known:- Privatizing Social Security does nothing to extend the solvency of the program.
- Transition costs would put our Nation in greater debt by as much as $4.9 trillion.
- Creating private accounts would mean benefit cuts for retirees, by as much as 40%.
- Half of all American workers today have no pension plan from their employers. It is critical that we protect this safety net.
Make no mistake about it, this is a stalking-horse for Social Security. It looks good on the surface, but this is an amendment to privatize Social Security.
Reference:
Bill S.Amdt.489 on S.Con.Res.21
; vote number 2007-089
on Mar 22, 2007
Voted YES on raising 401(k) limits & making pension plans more portable.
Comprehensive Retirement Security and Pension Reform Act of 2001: Vote to pass a bill that would raise the amount individuals may contribute to traditional and Roth Individual Retirement Accounts and to 401[k] plans and make pensions plans more portable
Reference: Bill sponsored by Portman, R-OH;
Bill HR 10
; vote number 2001-96
on May 2, 2001
Voted YES on reducing tax payments on Social Security benefits.
Vote to pass a bill that would reduce the percentage of Social Security benefits that is taxable from 85 to 50 percent for single taxpayers with incomes over $25,000 and married couples with incomes over $32,000. The revenues that would be lost for the Medicare trust fund would be replaced by money from the general fund.
Reference: Bill sponsored by Archer, R-TX;
Bill HR 4865
; vote number 2000-450
on Jul 27, 2000
Voted NO on strengthening the Social Security Lockbox.
Amending the Social Security Lockbox bill to require that any budget surplus cannot be spent until the solvency of Social Security and Medicare is guaranteed.
Reference: Motion to Recommit introduced by Rangel, D-NY;
Bill HR 1259
; vote number 1999-163
on May 26, 1999
Rated 0% by the ARA, indicating an anti-senior voting record.
Isakson scores 0% by the ARA on senior issues
The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security. The Alliance believes that all older and retired persons have a responsibility to strive to create a society that incorporates these goals and rights and that retirement provides them with opportunities to pursue new and expanded activities with their unions, civic organizations and their communities.
The following ratings are based on the votes the organization considered most important; the numbers reflect the percentage of time the representative voted the organization's preferred position.
Source: ARA website 03n-ARA on Dec 31, 2003
Rated 6% by ARA, indicating a pro-privatization stance.
Isakson scores 6% Alliance for Retired Americans
Scoring system for 2014: Ranges from 0% (supports privatization and other market-based reforms) to 100% (supports keeping federal control over Trust Fund and Social Security system).
About ARA (from their website, www.RetiredAmericans.org):
The Alliance for Retired Americans is a nationwide organization, founded in May 2001, with now over 4.2 million members working together to make their voices heard in the laws, policies, politics, and institutions that shape our lives. The mission of the Alliance for Retired Americans is to ensure social and economic justice and full civil rights for all citizens so that they may enjoy lives of dignity, personal and family fulfillment and security.
- Alliance members visit the polls in record numbers. We use the power of our membership and our Congressional Voting Record to educate and mobilize seniors to elect leaders committed to improving the lives of retirees and older Americans.
-
We are effectively warding off cuts to our most important social programs like Social Security and Medicare. Our Human Chain Against the Chained CPI events in the summer of 2013 took place in more than 50 cities and mobilized support for stopping this cut to earned Social Security benefits.
- We blocked the privatization of Social Security with our Social Security "Truth Truck" delivering 2.1 million petitions to Members of Congress and other tactics.
- The Alliance makes its voice heard on the issues that matter not just to current retirees, but to all Americans who hope to retire one day. We were a leading voice in recent debates considering changes to Medicare, like replacing guaranteed benefits with a voucher system, and remain so in 2014.
Source: ARA lifetime rating on incumbents of 113th Congress 14_ARA on Jan 1, 2013
Supports individual savings accounts and work incentives.
Isakson adopted the Republican Main Street Partnership issue stance:
Congress must address the rapidly approaching disaster of a depleted Social Security system. Within the next ten years "baby boomers" will start retiring. It is estimated that, as a result of this, by 2013 Social Security will be making greater payments to retirees than it will take in from the workforce. By 2032 the Social Security Trust Fund will be completely exhausted. Congress could rewrite this forecast by establishing individual savings accounts, restoring Social Security to permanent actuarial solvency, improving work incentives and/or resolving internal administrative problems.
Source: Republican Main St. Partnership Issue Paper: Fiscal Policy 98-RMSP3 on Sep 9, 1998
|
Other candidates on Social Security: |
Johnny Isakson on other issues: |
GA Gubernatorial: Andrew Hunt Brian Kemp Casey Cagle Hunter Hill Jason Carter Keisha Lance Bottoms Nathan Deal Sonny Perdue Stacey Abrams GA Senatorial: Allen Buckley David Perdue Derrick Grayson Doug Collins Jason Carter Jim Barksdale John Barrow Jon Ossoff Kelly Loeffler Matt Lieberman Ted Terry Teresa Tomlinson Tom Price
GA politicians
GA Archives
|
Senate races 2019-20:
AK:
Sullivan(R,incumbent)
vs.Gross(I)
AL:
Jones(D,incumbent)
vs.Sessions(R)
vs.Moore(R)
vs.Mooney(R)
vs.Rogers(D)
vs.Tuberville(R)
vs.Byrne(R)
vs.Merrill(R)
AR:
Cotton(R,incumbent)
vs.Mahony(D)
vs.Whitfield(I)
vs.Harrington(L)
AZ:
McSally(R,incumbent)
vs.Kelly(D)
CO:
Gardner(R,incumbent)
vs.Hickenlooper(D)
vs.Madden(D)
vs.Baer(D)
vs.Walsh(D)
vs.Johnston(D)
vs.Romanoff(D)
vs.Burnes(D)
vs.Williams(D)
DE:
Coons(D,incumbent)
vs.Scarane(D)
GA-2:
Isakson(R,resigned)
Loeffler(R,appointed)
vs.Lieberman(D)
vs.Collins(R)
vs.Carter(D)
GA-6:
Perdue(R,incumbent)
vs.Tomlinson(D)
vs.Ossoff(D)
vs.Terry(D)
IA:
Ernst(R,incumbent)
vs.Graham(D)
vs.Mauro(D)
vs.Greenfield(D)
ID:
Risch(R,incumbent)
vs.Harris(D)
vs.Jordan(D)
IL:
Durbin(D,incumbent)
vs.Curran(R)
vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS:
Roberts(R,retiring)
vs.LaTurner(R)
vs.Wagle(R)
vs.Kobach(R)
vs.Bollier(D)
vs.Lindstrom(R)
vs.Grissom(D)
vs.Marshall(R)
KY:
McConnell(R,incumbent)
vs.McGrath(D)
vs.Morgan(R)
vs.Cox(D)
vs.Tobin(D)
vs.Booker(D)
LA:
Cassidy(R,incumbent)
vs.Pierce(D)
|
MA:
Markey(D,incumbent)
vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
vs.Ayyadurai(R)
vs.Kennedy(D)
ME:
Collins(R,incumbent)
vs.Sweet(D)
vs.Gideon(D)
vs.Rice(D)
MI:
Peters(D,incumbent)
vs.James(R)
MN:
Smith(D,incumbent)
vs.Carlson(D)
vs.Lewis(R)
vs.Overby(G)
MS:
Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent)
vs.Espy(D)
vs.Bohren(D)
MT:
Daines(R,incumbent)
vs.Bullock(D)
vs.Collins(D)
vs.Mues(D)
vs.Driscoll(R)
vs.Giese(L)
NC:
Tillis(R,incumbent)
vs.E.Smith(D)
vs.S.Smith(R)
vs.Cunningham(D)
vs.Tucker(R)
vs.Mansfield(D)
NE:
Sasse(R,incumbent)
vs.Janicek(R)
NH:
Shaheen(D,incumbent)
vs.Martin(D)
vs.Bolduc(R)
vs.O'Brien(f)
NJ:
Booker(D,incumbent)
vs.Singh(R)
vs.Meissner(R)
NM:
Udall(D,retiring)
vs.Clarkson(R)
vs.Oliver(D)
vs.Lujan(D)
vs.Rich(R)
OK:
Inhofe(R,incumbent)
vs.Workman(D)
OR:
Merkley(D,incumbent)
vs.Romero(R)
vs.Perkins(R)
RI:
Reed(D,incumbent)
vs.Waters(R)
SC:
Graham(R,incumbent)
vs.Tinubu(D)
vs.Harrison(D)
SD:
Rounds(R,incumbent)
vs.Borglum(R)
vs.Ahlers(D)
TN:
Alexander(R,incumbent)
vs.Sethi(R)
vs.Mackler(D)
vs.Hagerty(R)
TX:
Cornyn(R,incumbent)
vs.Hegar(D)
vs.Hernandez(D)
vs.Bell(D)
vs.Ramirez(D)
vs.West(D)
VA:
Warner(D,incumbent)
vs.Taylor(R)
vs.Gade(R)
WV:
Capito(R,incumbent)
vs.Swearengin(D)
vs.Ojeda(D)
WY:
Enzi(R,incumbent)
vs.Ludwig(D)
vs.Lummis(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
|
Contact info: Fax Number: 202-228-2090 Mailing Address: Senate Office SR-120, Washington, DC 20510 Phone number: (202) 224-3643
|
Page last updated: Jul 14, 2020