Tick-tock. Social Security Fairness Act’s nearing death without Senate vote scheduled

Pressure is mounting for the Senate to vote on a bill that could return Social Security benefits public sector workers feel they’re entitled to. The Social Security Fairness Act, which would eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), was passed by the U.S. House in November and has been awaiting a Senate vote. The bill must be voted on by year end, or it dies. 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. Knowing the deadline is fast-approaching, many public sector workers and senators are pleading for the Senate to bring the Act for a vote. In the past few weeks, Senators Ed Markey (D-MA), Bill Cassidy (R-LA), Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Susan Collins (R-ME) have either made impassioned speeches on the Senate floor or written letters. Public sector workers from across the nation plan to rally at the Capitol on Dec. 11. “It is shameful that such a widely supported measure has yet to be scheduled for a vote,” said Susan Dixon, 68, retired schoolteacher in San Clemente, California, and president of the California Retired Teachers Association. “I will be at the rally to ensure our voices are heard and to demand action for the millions of retirees who deserve fairness and respect. It is also critical that our Senators are present for votes the next two weeks.”

How do WEP and GPO lower Social Security benefits?

• The Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) reduces Social Security for those who receive so-called “non-covered” pension income from jobs, typically public sector roles, that didn’t contribute Social Security payroll taxes. The reduction can be significant – up to half the pension amount.
• The Government Pension Offset (GPO) reduces survivor or spousal benefits if a person’s pension is non-covered. GPO affects fewer people, but it cuts the Social Security benefit by two-thirds of the pension amount. If two-thirds of your government 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 Senate sponsors, more than the 60 votes needed to be filibuster-proof and pass the legislation so people want to know what’s the hold up? Senator Angus King (I-ME) told USA TODAY he’s heard the bill doesn’t have enough votes to pass. There’s been talk some Republican senators may have backed away, he said, although the handful of senators who responded to USA TODAY’s queries said they remained committed to the bill. Reports have suggested that some senators may be worried about costs. The Social Security Fairness Act would cost $196 billion over the next decade, hasten Social Security’s insolvency by about six months and increase the automatic benefit cuts when they occur, said the bipartisan nonprofit Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB). Representative Garret Graves (R-LA), who co-sponsored the House bill that passed, has said he believes the Senate’s slow roll is intended to kill the bill. King said he remains hopeful the bipartisan bill will get attached to a “must pass” spending bill like the National Defense Reauthorization Act and pass. “I’d give that better than even odds,” he said. A spokesperson for Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) responded late Sunday to USA TODAY saying the Act is “a high priority to get done this year.”

What if the bill dies?

If the Social Security Fairness Act fails to pass, Congress must begin the process all over again. It could give legislators time to draft a bill that reforms, instead of repeals, the rules, which some analysts said could prevent Social Security from becoming insolvent sooner and be fair. “At a time when we’re already borrowing $2 trillion a year and retirees are already slated to see a 21% benefit cut – an average of $16,500 for a newly retiring couple in 2033 – in just nine years, why would we make it a 22%, $17,300 cut in eight and a half years instead?” said Maya MacGuineas, CRFB president, in a statement.

Are WEP and GPO unfair?

The rules were intended to prevent Social Security from overpaying people who worked in non-covered pension jobs, policy experts said. People with earnings outside the Social Security system can look like low earners and reap “a better return on their Social Security contributions than people with similar lifetime earnings who paid into Social Security throughout their lives,” wrote Andrew Biggs, senior fellow at the right-leaning American Enterprise Institute thinktank. But those who are affected say the rules are unfair because they earned those benefits and paid into Social Security working private-sector jobs. “I worked and paid into Social Security from 1969 until about 2018,” said Don Hillbish, retired police Sergeant from Reading, Pennsylvania, who began working as a newspaper boy at 14 years old, part-time jobs from 15 through college and all during his career as a police officer, like many other 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 reforming, rather than repealing, WEP and GPO could ensure both fairness and improve Social Security’s solvency. “The legislation has quietly accomplished a feat rarely seen in Washington, D.C.,” wrote Brenton Smith, policy adviser to the Heartland Institute. “It has served to align virtually every thinktank in town in opposition, 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 with each other, but in this case, they have found common ground.” Many of those research groups, including the Bipartisan Policy Center, which aims to represent ideas from both Republicans and Democrats, support replacing WEP with a “proportional formula” for Social Security. This would allow retirees to receive Social Security benefits based on the fraction of earnings covered by Social Security, they said.