Rare bipartisan momentum is growing in the House of Representatives to address a topic Congress typically avoids — Social Security. The bill at the center of this momentum is the Social Security Fairness Act, which aims to repeal two rules that reduce Social Security benefits for workers and spouses who also receive pension income. This proposal has garnered significant support from both Democrats and Republicans, with 172 signatures on a discharge petition to force a vote on the bill on the House floor.
The Push for Change
On Tuesday, Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Garret Graves, R-La., filed the discharge petition to bring the Social Security Fairness Act to the House floor for a vote. Currently, the petition has 172 signatures, including 25 Republicans, with a total of 218 signatures required for a vote. The bill also boasts 327 co-sponsors in the House, indicating strong bipartisan support for the proposal. Additionally, the Senate version of the bill has 62 co-sponsors, further showcasing the widespread backing for the legislation.
National groups representing various public employees, including police, firefighters, teachers, postal workers, and government employees at all levels, have thrown their support behind the effort to eliminate the existing Social Security rules. Despite the growing momentum, experts caution that passing the bill into law will not be easy due to time constraints and the extensive workload facing both the Senate and the House before the end of the year.
The Current Rules and Their Impact
The two rules targeted for repeal by the Social Security Fairness Act are the government pension offset (GPO) and windfall elimination provision (WEP). The GPO reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows, and widowers who also receive pension income, affecting more than 745,000 Americans. On the other hand, the WEP reduces benefits for individuals who receive pension or disability benefits from employment that did not require contributions to the Social Security program, impacting over 2 million workers.
The impact of these rules can be significant, leading to reduced income for affected individuals and prompting difficult life decisions. For instance, at a recent Senate hearing, Roger Boudreau, president of the Rhode Island American Federation of Teachers Retirees Chapter, highlighted the case of a 75-year-old schoolteacher who continues to work out of fear that retiring would leave her without enough income to live on. The government pension offset has essentially made her a “slave to her job,” as her Social Security benefits may disappear if she starts collecting pension benefits she earned.
The Debate Over Repeal
While there is bipartisan support for repealing the GPO and WEP rules, some experts argue that completely eliminating these rules could create unintended consequences. Research from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities suggests that removing the rules could result in disproportionately generous benefits for workers who only pay Social Security taxes for part of their careers. Social Security benefits are designed to be progressive, with a more generous income replacement formula for low earners compared to higher earners.
Critics of repealing the current rules argue that adjustments are necessary to ensure fairness and sustainability within the Social Security program. Paul Van de Water, a senior fellow at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and a retired federal employee affected by the windfall elimination provision, believes that simply repealing the rules could have negative implications for the program. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the repeal would cost around $196 billion over 10 years, adding financial strain to a program already facing trust fund depletion dates.
Proposed Solutions
While some lawmakers advocate for the complete repeal of the GPO and WEP rules through the Social Security Fairness Act, others suggest alternative solutions to address the issue. The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities recommends updating the current rules to better reflect total income, including spousal and survivor benefits. This could involve prorating benefits based on an individual’s lifetime earnings that contributed to the program.
Emerson Sprick, associate director for the economic policy program at the Bipartisan Policy Center, emphasizes the need to update the rules rather than repealing them entirely. He suggests making adjustments based on the most up-to-date data available to the Social Security Administration to ensure fairness and sustainability within the program. Despite differing opinions on the best course of action, lawmakers continue to advocate for change to address the inequities present in the current Social Security rules.
In conclusion, the push to eliminate the government pension offset and windfall elimination provision through the Social Security Fairness Act represents a rare bipartisan effort to address a longstanding issue within the program. While there is broad support for repealing these rules, the debate over the potential consequences and alternative solutions remains ongoing. Lawmakers must carefully consider the implications of their actions on the Social Security program’s financial stability and the well-being of millions of Americans who rely on these benefits.