The Senate on Thursday voted overwhelmingly to pass a bill that would increase Social Security benefits to more than 2 million Americans by repealing two laws that limit payments to state and local public sector employees and their families.
It won by a vote of 73-23.
This showed strong support for a bill that would support police officers, firefighters, educators, and civil servants who receive benefits from public pensions that are not covered by Social Security.
The bill passed the House on a 327-75 vote earlier this month.
It must pass one more procedural hurdle in the Senate before receiving a final vote. President Biden plans to sign the document once it reaches his desk.
Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine), who sponsored the bill, said the bill would address the “horrible inequity” of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO).
Together, the two laws would reduce Social Security benefits for workers and their spouses receiving state pensions, and lawmakers who supported the bills said that in some cases, benefits could be drastically reduced and retirement benefits would be reduced. He said that this would bring many people closer to poverty.
“The combination of both created these inequalities for people who received Social Security benefits or had spouses who worked in the private sector and earned those benefits,” Collins said. .
Sen. Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), who joined his colleagues in reintroducing the bill this Congress, talked about Betty, a high school civics teacher in Louisiana. She “taught in public schools all her life,” and her husband also worked. For Exxon. After her husband passed away, she saw her monthly Social Security benefits cut to $200 a month.
“In terms of Social Security benefits, she would have been better off not working than she would have been working,” Cassidy said.
He said nurses, technicians and janitors at the public hospital where he worked as a doctor are also facing cuts in their Social Security benefits because of WEP and GPO.
The bill's sponsors say that if the bill is signed into law, nearly 2.3 million Americans will see an increase in their Social Security benefits.
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted in September that the bill would increase the federal deficit by $196 billion over the next 10 years without further intervention from Congress, accelerating the collapse of Social Security by six months.
The bill met fierce resistance from budget hawks in the Senate Republican conference during a contentious luncheon on Tuesday.
Senate Administration Committee Chairman Mike Lee (R-Utah) called for the cost of the bill to be offset to avoid creating a “giant hole in the Social Security Trust Fund.”
“There has to be some kind of offset. As far as I know, we've never in history set off a bomb so big that it would blow such a big hole in the Social Security Trust Fund ($200 billion). ” he said.
“We understand that we need to address the inequalities that are occurring in this area. I don't think there's a member of our council who doesn't think we need to do some repair. “But I think it's a joke and an abuse of the American people to burn a $200 billion hole without thinking about how to fix it,” he said.
Senate Republican John Thune (S.D.), who will become Senate Majority Leader next year, announced his opposition to the bill behind closed doors.
But Thune later told reporters he intended to let Republican senators vote the way they wanted.
“Ultimately, I think individual members will make their own decisions,” he said.
On Wednesday, 24 Republican senators, including Vice President-elect J.D. Vance of Ohio, voted to end debate on the bill's progress.
Sen. Mike Braun (R-Ind.), a self-described fiscal conservative who voted in favor of the bill, said the cost of fully restoring Social Security benefits to millions of Americans would be a massive spending spree in Washington. He said that considering the price, it would not be that expensive.
“I've been one of the most vocal fiscal conservatives, and it was simple logic to me,” he said. “In my opinion, it was addressing a real issue of inequality.”
He said the bill's cost would be a “substantial year-over-year change” considering the federal government currently spends more than $6 trillion a year.
Two retiring members of the Democratic caucus, Sens. Tom Carper (D-Delaware) and Joe Manchin (D-Virginia, ID), voted against the bill.
