Allen Buckley on Social Security

2004 former Libertarian Senate challenger (GA)


Financial Sanity Act: raise age to 70

Q: How would you guarantee Social Security benefits for future generations?

A: By enacting the Financial Sanity Act, a bill I drafted that can be found on my campaign website. It gradually moves the normal retirement age for Social Security and the Medicare eligibility age to age 70, and then adjusts it every ten years based on changing life expectancy, so that everyone gets a constant percentage of life expectancy coverage (e.g. 20% of life expectancy). It also slightly modifies the cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) by slightly reducing it, in accordance with the tax laws' COLA. It should be noted that the "trust fund" is a fallacy, as the notes are simply IOUs issued by the Treasury Department to the Social Security Administration. Note: I don't think you'll find another candidate who will even address the issue, let alone provide a bill designed to fix the problems.

Source: AFA iVoterGuide on 2019-20 Georgia 2-year Senate , Nov 3, 2020

Phase out government-sponsored retirement system

Retirement planning is the responsibility of the individual, not the government. Libertarians would phase out the current government-sponsored Social Security system and transition to a private voluntary system. The proper and most effective source of help for the poor is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals. We believe members of society will become more charitable and civil society will be strengthened as government reduces its activity in this realm.
Source: 2016 Libertarian Party Platform, adopted in Convention , May 30, 2016

Raise retirement to age 70 to save Social Security

I would try to reform all entitlements. Social Security; if we put in the tax system I propose, all you need to do is move the Medicare retirement age to 70.
Source: The Red & Black on 2019-20 Georgia 2-year Senate race , Feb 11, 2016

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
Brian Kemp
Casey Cagle
Hunter Hill
Jason Carter
Keisha Lance Bottoms
Nathan Deal
Sonny Perdue
Stacey Abrams
GA Senatorial:
David Perdue
Derrick Grayson
Doug Collins
Ed Tarver
Jason Carter
Jim Barksdale
John Barrow
Johnny Isakson
Jon Ossoff
Kelly Loeffler
Matt Lieberman
Raphael Warnock
Shane Hazel
Ted Terry
Teresa Tomlinson
Tom Price
Valencia Stovall

GA politicians
GA Archives
Senate races 2019-20:
AK: Sullivan(R,incumbent) vs.Gross(I) vs.Blatchford(D)
AL: Jones(D,incumbent) vs.Tuberville(R) vs.Sessions(R) vs.Moore(R) vs.Rogers(D) vs.Merrill(R)
AR: Cotton(R,incumbent) vs.Harrington(L) vs.Whitfield(I) vs.Mahony(D)
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) vs.Witzke(R) vs.DeMartino(R)
GA-2: Isakson(R,resigned) Loeffler(R,appointed) vs.Warnock(D) vs.Collins(R) vs.Tarver(D) vs.Carter(D) vs.Lieberman(D) vs.Grayson(R) vs.Stovall(I) vs.Buckley(L)
GA-6: Perdue(R,incumbent) vs.Ossoff(D) vs.Hazel(L) vs.Tomlinson(D) vs.Terry(D)
IA: Ernst(R,incumbent) vs.Greenfield(D) vs.Graham(D) vs.Mauro(D) vs.Franken(D)
ID: Risch(R,incumbent) vs.Jordan(D) vs.Harris(D)
IL: Durbin(D,incumbent) vs.Curran(R) vs.Stava-Murray(D)
KS: Roberts(R,retiring) vs.Marshall(R) vs.Bollier(D) vs.LaTurner(R) vs.Wagle(R) vs.Kobach(R) vs.Lindstrom(R) vs.Grissom(D)
KY: McConnell(R,incumbent) vs.McGrath(D) vs.Morgan(R) vs.Cox(D) vs.Tobin(D) vs.Booker(D)
LA: Cassidy(R,incumbent) vs.Perkins(D) vs.Pierce(D)

MA: Markey(D,incumbent) vs.O`Connor(R) vs.Ayyadurai(R) vs.Kennedy(D) vs.Liss-Riordan(D)
ME: Collins(R,incumbent) vs.Gideon(D) vs.Sweet(D) vs.Rice(D)
MI: Peters(D,incumbent) vs.James(R) vs.Squier(G)
MN: Smith(D,incumbent) vs.Lewis(R) vs.Overby(G) vs.Carlson(D)
MS: Hyde-Smith(R,incumbent) vs.Espy(D) vs.Bohren(D)
MT: Daines(R,incumbent) vs.Bullock(D) vs.Collins(D) vs.Driscoll(R) vs.Mues(D) vs.Geise(L)
NC: Tillis(R,incumbent) vs.Cunningham(D) vs.E.Smith(D) vs.S.Smith(R) vs.Tucker(R) vs.Mansfield(D)
NE: Sasse(R,incumbent) vs.Janicek(R)
NH: Shaheen(D,incumbent) vs.Messner(R) vs.Martin(D) vs.Bolduc(R) vs.O'Brien(R)
NJ: Booker(D,incumbent) vs.Mehta(R) vs.Singh(R) vs.Meissner(R)
NM: Udall(D,retiring) vs.Lujan(D) vs.Ronchetti(R) vs.Walsh(L) vs.Clarkson(R) vs.Oliver(D) vs.Rich(R)
OK: Inhofe(R,incumbent) vs.Broyles(D) vs.Workman(D)
OR: Merkley(D,incumbent) vs.Perkins(R) vs.Romero(R)
RI: Reed(D,incumbent) vs.Waters(R)
SC: Graham(R,incumbent) vs.Harrison(D) vs.Tinubu(D)
SD: Rounds(R,incumbent) vs.Ahlers(D) vs.Borglum(R)
TN: Alexander(R,retiring) vs.Hagerty(R) vs.Bradshaw(D) vs.Sethi(R) vs.Mackler(D) vs.Crim(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,retiring) vs.Lummis(R) vs.Ben-David(D) vs.Ludwig(D)
Civil Rights
Foreign Policy
Free Trade
Govt. Reform
Gun Control
Health Care
Homeland Security
Social Security
Tax Reform

Other Senators
Senate Votes (analysis)
Bill Sponsorships
Policy Reports
Group Ratings

Page last updated: Nov 24, 2020