Last month, Congress took a notable step forward in a rare bipartisan effort to amend some Social Security regulations. On November 12, the House of Representatives approved the Social Security Fairness Act with a decisive vote of 327 to 75.
This legislation aims to abolish rules that reduce Social Security benefits for individuals also receiving public pension income, affecting about 2.8 million people. Although this victory was celebrated by advocates, the wait continues as the Senate needs to approve the proposal for it to become law, with legislative days in this session running short.
In a rally on Capitol Hill amidst rainy conditions, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer from New York reassured supporters that the Senate would take action, sparking cheers from a crowd of fire fighters, police officers, postal workers, teachers, and other government employees. “We’re moving this forward,” Schumer declared, noting that all Democrats were on board and that they needed 15 Republicans to join.
“We’ll fight this injustice,” Schumer promised. Bette Marafino, an 86-year-old retired teacher who has advocated for this change, was there when the House passed the bill in November. Witnessing the moment evoked a mix of cheers and tears of joy from the committed advocates.
Yet, Marafino now worries about the bill’s fate if the Senate doesn’t act by December 20, especially since key representatives like Garret Graves and Abigail Spanberger, who were championing the bill, are exiting Congress. “If the bill doesn’t pass, we’ll need new allies to start the process again,” she said, reflecting on the challenges ahead.
In terms of Personal Finance: There’s a federal proposal aiming to make long-term care more affordable, and a debate about Social Security’s trust fund has surfaced, alongside discussions on dynamic pricing.
Despite receiving strong backing from advocates, not everyone is convinced the Social Security Fairness Act is the right move. Critics argue the rules targeted for removal, such as the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), ensure fairness in benefits distribution since Social Security is designed to provide higher income replacement for those with lower lifetime earnings.
The bill, however, doesn’t provide a means to compensate for the fiscal impact of the proposed increases, which, over a decade, could cost approximately $196 billion according to the Congressional Budget Office. Some experts remain skeptical about the need to repeal these provisions.
The WEP affects around 2.1 million beneficiaries by lowering their retirement or disability benefits, while the GPO impacts nearly 746,000 individuals by reducing spousal or widow(er) benefits—all due to pensions from jobs not covered by Social Security.
Rather than full elimination, some propose adjusting benefits with more precise formulas. Still, organizations like the International Association of Fire Fighters argue that outright removal is necessary. Edward Kelly, IAFF’s president, highlighted the financial struggles faced by firefighters in Louisiana, who often juggle multiple jobs and yet find their benefits diminished upon retirement, describing this as both devastating and unjust.
Many public workers find the reduction in their Social Security benefits a surprising setback. Roger Boudreau, a retired teacher and board member of the Alliance for Retired Americans, recalls being shocked when he learned that his benefits would be cut by 40%, leading to a significant annual loss.
Some, like Lois Carson, president of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, have postponed retirement due to these rules. Carson notes that many women rely on their husband’s benefits while still working, but these drop significantly upon retirement if they don’t act.
Advocates aren’t letting up, with groups urging lawmakers to move the bill forward. Since it passed the House in November, firefighters alone have sent thousands of emails to push Senate leaders for action.
Experts warn that while the bill enjoys strong co-sponsor support in the Senate, it still faces competition with other legislative priorities. If it isn’t passed in this Congress, the effort could falter. Nevertheless, with 62 Senate co-sponsors, there’s optimism. “Once it reaches a final vote, it stands a strong chance of passing,” noted Emerson Sprick, calling it a matter of timing.
