Pressure is mounting on the Senate to vote on a bill that could hand back social security benefits that public sector workers feel they are entitled to.
The Social Security Fairness Act, which repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), passed the U.S. House of Representatives in November and awaits a vote in the Senate. The bill must be voted on by the end of the year or it will die.
WEP and GPO reduce Social Security benefits for certain retirees who also receive pension income. Together, WEP and GPO affect nearly 3 million Americans, including police officers, firefighters, postal workers, and public school teachers.
Aware of the looming deadline, many public sector workers and senators are petitioning the Senate to vote on the legislation. In the past few weeks, senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Bill Cassidy (R-Louisiana), Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine) He has given impassioned speeches on the Senate floor and written letters. Public sector workers across the country are scheduled to rally at Parliament House on December 11th.
“It's shameful that a bill that was so widely supported is still not scheduled for a vote,” said Susan Dixon, 68, a former teacher and president of the California Retired Teachers Association in San Clemente, California. “I will join the rally to ensure our voices are heard and demand action for the millions of retirees who deserve fairness and respect. Over the next two weeks, senators will be on hand to vote. It is also important.
Holiday sale: Shop this season's top products and deals handpicked by our editors.
How do WEP and GPO lower Social Security benefits?
- Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) Cut Social Security for people who receive so-called “non-qualified” pension income from jobs that don't contribute Social Security payroll taxes, typically public sector roles. The reduction amount can be significantly reduced, up to half of your pension amount.
- Government Pension Offset (GPO) If the pension does not apply, survivor benefits and spousal benefits will be reduced. Few people will be affected by the GPO, but their Social Security benefits will be cut by two-thirds of their pension amount. If two-thirds of your state pension exceeds your Social Security benefits, your benefits could be zero.
Why won't the Senate vote on the bill?
The Social Security Fairness Act includes: 62 bipartisan Senate sponsorspeople want to know what's on hold since it takes 60 votes or more to break a filibuster and pass a bill?
Sen. Angus King (I-ME) told USA TODAY he heard the bill didn't have enough votes to pass. He said there is talk that some Republican senators may have backed away, but a small number of senators asked by USA TODAY remain committed to the bill.
The report suggests Some senators may worry about the cost. The Social Security Fairness Act is Cost: $196 billion The bipartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB) said it would accelerate Social Security bankruptcy by about six months over the next 10 years and increase the amount of automatic benefit cuts if that happens. .
Rep. Garrett Graves (R-Louisiana), a co-sponsor of the House bill that passed, said he believes the Senate's slow movement is a problem. The aim is to kill the bill.
King said he remains hopeful that the bipartisan bill will be passed in conjunction with “must-pass” spending bills like the National Defense Reauthorization Act.
“I think it's better than even odds,” he said.
A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told USA TODAY late Sunday that the bill is “a top priority to pass before the end of the year.”
Potential new boss:President Trump nominates financial CEO Frank Bisignano to head the Social Security Administration
What happens if the bill dies?
If the Social Security Fairness Act fails to pass, Congress will have to start the process all over again.
That could give lawmakers time to draft legislation that reforms rather than repeals the rules, which some analysts say could prevent Social Security from collapsing early and ensure fairness. He expressed the view that it could be done.
“At a time when we are already borrowing $2 trillion a year and cutting retiree benefits by 21% (to an average of $16,500 for newly retired couples in 2033) in just nine years, Why should it be reduced by 21% in 2033? Instead, it will be reduced by 22%, or $17,300, over eight and a half years?” CRFB President Maya McGuineas said in a statement.
Are WEP and GPO unfair?
Policy experts say the rule is aimed at preventing Social Security from paying too much to people who work in jobs that don't qualify for pensions.
People who earn income outside of the Social Security system appear to have low incomes, but they “earn a higher return on Social Security contributions than people with similar lifetime incomes who paid into Social Security throughout their lifetime.” wrote senior researcher Andrew Biggs. We aim to become a think tank for the American Enterprise Institute.
But those affected argue the rule is unfair because they earned these benefits through private sector jobs and paid into Social Security.
“I worked and paid into Social Security from 1969 until about 2018,” said Don Hilbish, a retired police sergeant who lives in Reading, Pennsylvania. He started working as a newspaper carrier at the age of 14 and continued to work part-time from the age of 15 until college. His career as a police officer, like many other police officers and firefighters. But “after WEP and GPO, my monthly benefit went from $1,100 to about $350 because I collect a municipal pension.”
Is there a better way?
Most policy analysts agree that reforming, rather than abolishing, WEP and GPO would ensure equity and improve Social Security solvency.
“This bill quietly accomplished a feat rarely seen in Washington, D.C.,” wrote Brenton Smith, policy advisor at the Heartland Institute. “This policy has helped to align virtually every think tank in town in opposition. heritage foundation, Center for Budget and Public Policy, American Enterprise Institute, Bipartisan Policy Center, Progressive Policy Research Institute, urban research institute and Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. These groups almost always disagree with each other, but in this case they found common ground. ”
Many of these research groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, which aims to represent both Republican and Democratic ideas, Replace WEP with “proportional formula” For social security. This would allow retirees to collect Social Security benefits based on the portion of their Social Security-covered income.
(This article has been updated with new information and corrected attribution of quote to Heartland Institute policy advisor Brenton Smith.)
Medora Lee is USA TODAY's money, markets and personal finance reporter. She can be reached at the following address: mjlee@usatoday.com and Subscribe to the free Daily Money newsletter Get personal finance tips and business news every Monday through Friday morning.
