Mike Huckabee on Social Security
Republican AR Governor
Will try to fix Social Security with FairTax
We’re in trouble is because we have a smaller group of people paying into the Social Security system, fewer wage earners, more Americans getting their wealth from dividends and from investments. I’m a strong supporter of the Fair Tax is that you
suddenly have a different funding stream for Social Security. It comes out of the general fund. So you now have a more reliable, a more stable and a much broader funding system that will supply Social Security.
Source: 2008 GOP debate in Boca Raton Florida
Jan 24, 2008
Personalization of retirement funds, not privatization
Q: What’s your Social Security plan?
A: The president had the right idea, but he used the wrong word. When he used the word privatization, it scared the daylights out of a lot of people.
Q: Well, he didn’t. He used the word private accounts.
A: Well, but it scared the daylights out of people because they’re thinking Enron and WorldCom, and that that’s where their money would go. The right word is personalization. Empower individuals to have a greater say over their money.
And that’s what it is. Keep the government from robbing the trust funds, which is something that, if it was done in the private sector, would get a guy in jail. One thing, when people reach retirement age, if they really have enough retirement benefits,
they don’t need Social Security for the long term, give them the option of one-time buyout, or the opportunity to purchase an annuity, with their funds, tax-free, that frees up the long-term obligation of the government.
Source: 2007 GOP primary debate in Orlando, Florida
Oct 21, 2007
Personal retirement accounts allow investing in one’s future
Q: Current estimates for the unfunded liabilities of our Social Security system are as high as $10 trillion. Would you revive Pres. Bush’s attempt to introduce personal retirement accounts as a way to reform Social Security, thus allowing all Americans,
particularly low-wage workers & the self-employed, an investment in their future & ownership in the inheritance they pass on?
Source: 2007 GOP Values Voter Presidential Debate
Sep 17, 2007
- HUCKABEE: Yes.
- TANCREDO: Yes.
- COX: Yes.
- BROWNBACK: Yes.
- PAUL: Yes.
- HUNTER: Yes.
- KEYES: Yes.
Replace payroll tax & fund Social Security with FairTax
I’d like you to join me at the best “Going Out of Business” sale I can imagine--one held by the Internal Revenue Service. Am I running for president to shut down the federal government? Not exactly.
But I am running to completely eliminate all federal income and payroll taxes. And do I mean all--personal federal, corporate federal, gift, estate, capital gains, alternative minimum, Social Security, Medicare, self-employment.
All our hours filling out forms, all our payments for help with those forms, all our shopping bags filled with disorganized receipts, all our headaches and heartburn from tax stress will vanish. Instead we will have the
FairTax, a simple tax based on wealth. When the FairTax becomes law, it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness.
Source: Campaign website, www.mikehuckabee.com, “Issues”
Sep 1, 2007
No Congressional pensions; give them same deal as citizens
It is imperative that Congress learn that they have not been elected to be “princes of privilege”, but servants of the people. Congressional pensions should be eliminated altogether. Congressmen should be subject to the Social Security system and to the
same kind of Independent Retirement Accounts that other Americans have to experience. There are people in this nation who have worked 45 years and will earn a fraction of what the incumbent will receive after 18 years of Federal service as a Senator.
Source: Responses to Associated Press Questionnaire for AR Senate
Nov 1, 1992
Maintain long-term solvency of Social Security and Medicare.
Huckabee adopted the National Governors Association position paper:
The IssueWith the first federal budget surplus in a generation and estimates of non-Social Security surpluses ranging from $750 billion to $1.9 trillion over the next decade, the issue is whether Congress and the President will agree to dedicate a portion of the projected surplus to tax cuts and, if so, what the impacts on states might be.
Tax issues raise several concerns for states.
- How much of the potential non-Social Security surplus should be dedicated to tax cuts and breaks?
- Absent any consensus on long-term legislation to ensure solvency of Social Security and Medicare, would major federal revenue losses for tax cuts risk shifting substantial entitlement burdens to states?
- How would federal tax changes affect state income taxes?
- What are key elements for states of any future major tax bill? In school construction? For retirement? For housing and economic development? For health care?
NGA’s Position NGA opposes reductions from current discretionary spending levels or changes that could risk the long-term solvency of the nation’s Social Security and Medicare systems. NGA supports provisions to ensure reduced barriers to state and local capital finance through tax-exempt bonds and to ensure maximum flexibility in setting and maintaining state retirement plans and programs.
Source: National Governors Association "Issues / Positions" 01-NGA16 on Aug 1, 2001
Maintain federal funding of Social Services Block Grants.
Huckabee adopted a letter to Senate leaders from 4 Governors:
We are writing in strong opposition to the cuts to the Title XX/Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) program as included in the fiscal 2000 appropriations bill.
Over the past few years, SSBG has taken more than its share of cuts in federal funding. As part of the 1996 welfare reform deal, Congress made a commitment to Governors that SSBG would be level funded at $2.38 billion each year. In fact, Governors reluctantly accepted a 15% cut in SSBG funds at that time in exchange for the commitment for stable funding in the future. However, repeated cuts in SSBG have been enacted regardless of that commitment. For fiscal 2000, SSBG is funded at $1.05 billion, which is over a 50% cut from its mandatory authorized level. Such a drastic reduction in funding for SSBG will result in cuts to vital human services for our most vulnerable citizens.
SSBG provides services to needy populations, including low-income children and families, the elderly, and the disabled.
While SSBG does have a strong connection with welfare reform efforts in states by providing valuable resources for child care and transportation, it also provides services to many individuals who are not considered welfare recipients. For example, in many states, SSBG funding is used to provide foster care assistance, meals on wheels for the elderly, and independent living services for the disabled -- programs which are not allowable uses of welfare funds such as TANF.
In addition, as Congress finalizes this bill, we reiterate our adamant opposition to cutting funding for other vital health and human services programs which would adversely affect millions of Americans -- with the greatest impact on children and the elderly in the greatest need. The Governors are not seeking increased federal funding; we are simply requesting that you fulfill your commitments and reject cuts in programs such as SSBG that would jeopardize our strong state-federal partnership.
Source: National Governor's Association letter to Congress 99-NGA23 on Sep 29, 1999
Page last updated: Feb 08, 2010