John Neely Kennedy on Social Security
Democratic Senate Challenger (LA)
Endorses voluntary private retirement savings accounts
In his latest advertising effort, state treasurer Kennedy asserts that Landrieu voted to allow illegal immigrants onto the Social Security rolls. Predictably, the other side counters that he is lying.
Kennedy continues to broadcast an ad titled “Scary
Mary,” a retort to her accusations that Kennedy would cut Social Security because he has endorsed the idea of voluntary private retirement savings accounts. The Republican ad states that “Mary Landrieu voted to allow illegal immigrants into the Social
Security system.“ The statement refers to the Senate’s 2006 debate over an immigration bill. The relevant portion deals with what kind of Social Security benefits a legal immigrant might be due for wages the immigrants
earned before they established legal residence. Landrieu voted against a Republican amendment that would have prevented immigrants from receiving credit for Social Security taxes paid while their work status was not legal.
Source: 2008 Louisiana Senate debate reported in Times-Picayune
, Aug 25, 2008
Restore benefits to 800,000 low and middle-income retirees
John Kennedy announced that if elected one of his first priorities will be to introduce legislation to amend provisions that greatly reduces the Social Security benefits of low and middle-income government retirees and their spouses. “Our seniors
already face the high cost of living on a limited income,” said Kennedy. “They may have prepared for the skyrocketing prices of prescription drugs, medical bills and other expenses, but most are not ready for reduced Social Security benefits.”
Source: Campaign press release, “Restore Benefits”
, Mar 18, 2004
Preserve retirement security for state workers
As time goes on, it is very likely we will hear more news about the challenges of funding the Social Security system. It is important that our national leaders find and implement real solutions to fix the solvency problems surrounding Social Security,
since many Americans look to it for at least part of their retirement security. However, those “fixes” should not be done at the cost of undermining our states’ many public pension funds.
To mandate what would amount to “forced abandonment” of these systems for a quick infusion of funds into the Social Security system would be unconscionable. The proposals mandating Social Security coverage for public employees calculate that
such action would only reduce Social Security’s financial shortfall by about 10 percent. To better put that in prospective, it means that Social Security’s solvency would be extended by only two years!
Source: Treasurer’s Opinion Columns, “Preserve Retirement Security”
, Jan 1, 2001
Page last updated: Apr 17, 2020