Will the Senate pass the Social Security Fairness Act before time runs out?

Pressure is mounting on the Senate to vote on a bill that could return the Social Security benefits they say public workers are entitled to.

The Social Security Fairness Act, which would eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), passed the U.S. House of Representatives in November and is awaiting a vote in the Senate. The bill must be voted on by the end of the year or it will fail.

WEP and GPO reduce Social Security benefits for certain retirees who also receive retirement income. Combined, WEP and GPO affect nearly 3 million Americans, including police officers, firefighters, postal workers and public school teachers.

Knowing the deadline is fast approaching, many public officials and senators are calling for the Senate to bring the bill to a vote. In recent weeks, Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH), and Susan Collins (R-ME) have either given impassioned speeches on the Senate floor or written letters. Public workers from across the country plan to demonstrate in front of the Capitol on December 11th.

“It is shameful that such a widely supported measure has yet to come to a vote,” said Susan Dixon, 68, a retired teacher in San Clemente, Calif., and president of the California Retired Teachers Association. “I will be attending the rally to ensure our voices are heard and to demand action for the millions of pensioners who deserve fairness and respect. It is also important that our senators are present for the votes in the next two weeks.”

Holiday offers: Shop this season’s top products and special offers, curated by our editors.

How do WEP and GPO reduce Social Security benefits?

The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) reduces Social Security for those who receive so-called “unfunded” retirement income from jobs, typically in the public sector, that did not pay Social Security payroll taxes. The reduction can be significant – up to half of the pension amount.
The Government Pension Offset (GPO) reduces survivor or spousal benefits if a person’s pension is not covered. GPO affects fewer people but cuts Social Security benefits by two-thirds of the pension amount. If two-thirds of your state pension is more than your Social Security benefit, your benefit could be reduced to zero.

Why isn’t the Senate voting on the bill?

The Social Security Fairness Act has 62 bipartisan cosponsors in the Senate, more than the 60 votes needed to be filibuster-proof and pass the bill. So people want to know what’s wrong?

Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told USA TODAY he heard the bill didn’t have enough votes to pass. There are rumors that some Republican senators may have backed down, he said, although the handful of senators who responded to USA TODAY’s inquiries said they remained loyal to the bill.

Some senators may reportedly be concerned about the cost. The Social Security Fairness Act would cost $196 billion over the next decade, accelerate Social Security’s bankruptcy by about six months and increase automatic benefit cuts when they occur, the nonpartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said.

Rep. Garret Graves (R-LA), who co-sponsored the House bill as it passed, said he believes the Senate’s slow approach is aimed at killing the bill.

King said he remains confident that the bipartisan bill will be linked to a “must-pass” spending bill like the National Defense Reauthorization Act and passed.

“I would give that more than even odds,” he said.

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded to USA TODAY late Sunday that the bill is “a high priority for passage this year.”

New potential boss:Trump appoints Finance Chief Frank Bisignano to head the Social Security Administration

What if the bill fails?

If the Social Security Fairness Act does not pass, Congress will have to start the process over.

It could give lawmakers time to craft a bill that reforms rather than repeals the rules, which some analysts say could prevent Social Security from becoming insolvent more quickly and could be fair.

“At a time when we are already borrowing $2 trillion a year and retirees are already facing a 21% benefit cut in just nine years – an average of $16,500 for a newly retired couple in 2033 – why should “Are we going to make it? “22%, instead of a $17,300 cut in eight and a half years?” Maya MacGuineas, CRFB president, said in a statement.

Are WEP and GPO unfair?

The rules were intended to prevent Social Security from overpaying people who worked in non-covered retirement jobs, policy experts said.

People with income outside of the Social Security system can look like low earners and “get a better return on their Social Security contributions than people with similar lifetime earnings who have paid into Social Security their entire lives,” wrote Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the right-leaning think tank of the American Enterprise Institute.

But those affected say the rules are unfair because they earned those benefits and paid into Social Security by working in the private sector.

“I worked and paid into Social Security from 1969 until about 2018,” said Don Hillbish, a retired police sergeant from Reading, Pennsylvania, who started working as a paperboy at age 14, worked part-time jobs from age 15 through college and throughout his career as a police officer, like many other officers and firefighters. But after “WEP and GPO, my monthly pension went from $1,100 to about $350 because I receive a municipal pension.”

Is there a better way?

Most policy analysts agree that reform, rather than repeal, of the WEP and GPO could both ensure equity and improve Social Security’s solvency.

“The Legislature has quietly accomplished a feat rarely seen in Washington, D.C.,” wrote Brenton Smith, policy counsel at the Heartland Institute. “It helped bring into opposition virtually every think tank in the city, including the Heritage Foundation, the Center on Budget and Public Policy, the American Enterprise Institute, the Bipartisan Policy Center, the Progressive Policy Institute, the Urban Institute and the Committee for a responsible federal budget. These groups almost always disagree, but in this case they found common ground.”

Related Posts

Movsar Evloev defeats Aljamain Sterling

Tesla stock hits another high as Mizuho more than doubles price target to $515

The original Lord of the Rings animated films are finding a new streaming home

Leave a Reply Cancel reply