As Congress races against the clock to prevent a government shutdown, the Senate is preparing to review a separate bill that could increase Social Security benefits for some public workers. This bill, known as the Social Security Fairness Act, might be subject to modifications if certain Senators successfully push for amendments.
Initially, the Social Security Fairness Act aims to abolish two longstanding provisions of Social Security: the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). These provisions have been in place for quite some time now. The WEP reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive pension or disability benefits from jobs where they didn’t contribute to Social Security payroll taxes. On the other hand, the GPO impacts the Social Security benefits of spouses, widows, and widowers who have their own government pensions. Collectively, these two rules affect around three million people.
Organizations representing teachers, firefighters, police officers, and other government employees fondly support the bill, as these groups have experienced the brunt of the reduced benefits.
According to John Hatton, Vice President of Policy and Programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, “Penalizing individuals for earning income from outside their system while they’ve paid into it is unfair. We’ve been at this for four decades, trying to get these provisions repealed.”
The Social Security Fairness Act has gathered significant bipartisan support, passing the House with a solid 327-vote majority back in November. Preliminary votes in the Senate this week mirrored this strong support. On Wednesday, the Senate progressed the motion to proceed with a 73-vote majority, which was followed by an equally impressive vote on Thursday.
Experts suggest the Senate could soon cast a final vote, which might occur with amendments altering the bill’s original terms or straightforwardly as initially drafted.
Amendments could potentially include a proposal to increase the retirement age. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that enacting the Social Security Fairness Act would cost approximately $196 billion over the next decade. Such financial implications arise from the Social Security trust funds, which are currently facing potential depletion. According to Social Security’s trustees, the retirement benefit fund might be exhausted in nine years, reducing payable benefits to around 79%.
Some Senators have voiced concerns about the financial strain this Act could place on the system. Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky opposes the current iteration of the bill and has expressed plans to propose an amendment. His proposal would gradually increase the retirement age to 70 while considering life expectancy changes, aiming to offset the bill’s costs. He argues, “It’s illogical to propose something that would make Social Security less equitable and financially weaker. My amendment to align retirement age with life expectancy serves to save nearly $400 billion.”
By Friday morning, six amendments had been proposed, as noted by Emerson Sprick, Associate Director of Economic Policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. Some suggested replacing the full repeal of the WEP and GPO with alternative tweaks.
Among the amendments, one from Senators Ted Cruz of Texas and Joe Manchin of West Virginia suggests a proportional formula to calculate benefits for impacted individuals. This amendment, informed by Representative Jodey Arrington’s Equal Treatment of Public Servants Act, has garnered support from both policy experts and the Bipartisan Policy Center, Sprick mentioned.
Advocacy groups for Social Security have been lobbying for more comprehensive reforms, including potential tax hikes to increase benefit generosity. “We’re eager to drive this forward, preferably as part of a wider Social Security reform,” said Dan Adcock, Director of Government Relations and Policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.
If amendments do find their way into the bill, it would need to return to the House for approval. Adcock commented, “We hope it doesn’t come to that, as it could complicate matters depending on ongoing efforts to prevent a government shutdown.”
As the process unfolds, much depends on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York. He could choose to block amendments altogether or allow their consideration to proceed with time limitations for debate. Sprick, however, doubts that amendments will be permitted at this stage. “It’s likely that Senator Schumer will simply let the clock run out, bypass amendments, and move straight to a final vote either late tonight or early tomorrow.”
Although opponents might slow down the voting process, Hatton insists a final vote cannot be entirely obstructed. Moreover, he remains confident that those who have supported the bill thus far remain committed to voting for it during the final call. “I’m optimistic this will pass; it’s merely a question of when, not if,” he said.
