Published in RINewsToday on Dec. 30, 2024
After 40 years, a polarized Congress actually worked together on behalf of millions of Americans with public pensions to push through bipartisan legislation repealing two Social Security provisions that would benefit these individuals. Just past midnight in the early hours of Saturday, on Dec. 21, 2024, the U.S. Senate took up S. 597, a companion measure to H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, repealing unpopular WEP (Windfall Elimination Provision) & GPO (Government Pension Offset) provisions titles in the Social Security program.
The House had overwhelmingly passed H.R. 82, introduced last month introduced by Reps. Garret Graves (R-Louisiana) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA).
The Senate companion measure, authored by U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sherrod Brown (D-OH), overwhelmingly passed without amendment, by a Yea-Nay vote, 76-20 (with Sens. Marco Rubio (R-FL), JD Vance (R-Ohio), Joe Manchin (I-WV) and Adam Schiff (D-CA) not voting) and now goes to President Biden to be signed into law. At press time, H.R. 82 has not been signed and the President has until Dec. 31 to sign or veto the bill.
Before the historic Senate vote, at a Dec. 16 meeting with Patrick Yoes, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), and Executive Director Jim Pasco met with President-elect Donald J. Trump at his home in Mar-a-Lago, President elect Donald Trump announced his support for the upper chambers’ passage of the “Social Security Fairness Act”— the “FOP’s top priority.”
Earlier this year, Collins and Brown had called on Senate leadership to immediately bring their legislation, which had 62 Senate co-sponsors—above the margin needed for passage—to the Senate floor for a vote. Collins held the first Senate hearing on this policy in 2003 as Chair of the Senate Government Affairs Committee. She, along with the late Senator Dianne Feinstein, first introduced the Social Security Fairness Act in 2005.
Their bipartisan efforts pushed the legislative Social Security fix across the goal line, at the end of the second session of the 118th Congress. For Brown, who lost his bid for re-election in November, passage of S. 597 was a bitter sweet moment for him as he leaves the U.S. Senate after serving as a U.S. senator from Ohio since 2007.
In a Nutshell…
According to Graves, WEP reduces the earned Social Security benefits of an individual who also receives a public pension from a job not covered by Social Security. This financially impacts educators who do not earn Social Security in public schools but who work part-time or during the summer in jobs covered by Social Security, who have reduced benefits, even though they pay into the system just like others, Graves says.
Likewise, the GPO affects the spousal benefits of people who work as federal, state, or local government employees — including police officers, firefighters, and educators — if the job is not covered by Social Security. The GPO reduces by two-thirds the benefit received by surviving spouses who also collect a government pension, added Graves.
According to the National Education Association (NEA), more than 2.8 million public sector employees in 26 states were impacted by GPO and WEP. Educators were affected in 15 of those states, because they pay into their state pension system, but not into Social Security, says NEA.
The WEP currently impacts approximately 2 million Social Security beneficiaries, and the GPO impacts nearly 800,000 retirees.
Rally calls for passage of H.R. 82, gets Majority Senate Leader’s attention
Before Congress left Capitol Hill for recess, Graves and Spanberger, the primary sponsors of H.R. 82, had filed a discharge petition for their Social Security Fairness Act — which secured the required 218 signatures needed to force a floor vote in the U.S. House. On Nov. 12, 2024, a bipartisan majority voted 327 to 74, under suspension of rules to pass the legislation, sending it to the upper legislative chamber for consideration.
A week before the Senate vote on Dec. 21th, the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association along with unions representing fire fighters, teachers, police officers and other public service workers rallied at 11:30 a.m., at the Upper Senate Park at the U.S. Capitol, in pouring rain outside the Capitol, calling for passage of H.R. 82. Joining the rally, Majority Senate leader Chuck Schumer. “I’m here to tell you all today – we are going to call a vote on repealing WEP and GPO,” he said, calling the two Social Security titles “unfair and un-American.”
After the rally, Graves quickly issued this statement: “The Senate Majority Leader has called for a vote on our bill H.R. 82 – provided he gets the necessary 60 votes to get it to the floor. More than 60 Senators support our Social Security Fairness Act. In the House we have led the effort for years to build the winning coalition, resulting in the most cosponsored bill – the most popular bill – in the Congress. We defied the odds and fought back sneak attacks to successfully complete a discharge petition that resulted in the first vote in history to repeal the WEP and GPO. The heavy lifting is done. The path to victory could not be clearer. A WEP-GPO repeal could be in the stockings of millions of public service retirees this Christmas. Pass H.R. 82 now,” he said.
GOP lawmakers express concerns over financial impact
In response to a request from Chuck Grassley, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) had provided the Ranking Member of the Senate Budget Committee with its legislative analysis. The findings showed that the elimination of the WEP and GPO, as specified in H.R. 82, would permanently increase outlays for scheduled Social Security benefits—that is, the amounts that the program would pay if it continued to pay benefits as scheduled under current law, regardless of whether the program’s two trust funds had sufficient balances to cover those payments. That increase in Social Security benefits would drive the program’s spending even further above its revenues than it is already projected to be under current law. CBO estimates that the changes will cost nearly $ 200 billion over a 10-year period.
Senators Mike Crapo (R-ID), Grassley (R-IA), Ted Cruz (R-TX), Rand Paul (R-KY) and Thom Tillis (R-NC) and 16 other Republican Senators opposed passage, expressing strong concerns about the bill’s cost. This apprehension reinforced by the recently released CBO analysis.
Citing a CBO analysis of S. 82, the Republican Senators were concerned that the legislative proposal would reduce the Social Security trust fund by an additional $200 billion during the next decade, moving up the insolvency date by six months.
On the Senate floor, North Carolina Republican Sen. Thom Tillis said the bill’s title made it sound like “motherhood and apple pie,” quipping “who could be against Social Security fairness?” But he argued it wasn’t the right approach to address the problem.
However, 29 Republican Senators, including Sen. John Kennedy (R-LA), were not concerned about the CBO analysis, voting for passage of the legislative proposal.
Following the Senate vote, in a video on X, Kennedy stated: “Social Security is not free. People pay into it. The money we “spent” today in this bill – all we did is give it back to the people who earned it. Today was a good day. It was a good day for fairness, it was a good day for the Social Security system, and a good day for the people of Louisiana – even if you aren’t affected by these two unfair provisions of the Social Security Act, all Louisianians I know believe in fairness. Right is right and wrong is wrong, and I think we did the right thing here, and I’m pleased.”
With the dust settling after the Senate vote, after 40 years of trying to fix a Social Security benefits issue impacting public sector workers, Democratic and Republican lawmakers put aside political differences and finally fixed the pressing policy issue.
Celebrating the historic passage
Following the Senate vote for passage of H.R. 82, the National Fraternal Order of Police, International Association of Fire Fighters, National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, American Federation of Government Employees, American Federation of State, County & Municipal Employees, National Rural Letter Carriers’ Association, National Education Association, and Peace Officers Research Association of California applauded this legislation being sent to the president’s desk to enhance the fairness of Social Security to public workers.
U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) commended the passage of the Social Security Fairness Act, legislation he cosponsored to eliminate two policies. “Thousands of Rhode Islanders who receive government pensions but also contributed to Social Security through private-sector employment stand to benefit from the legislation,” he says.
“I’ve worked with my colleague Sherrod Brown for years to pass this legislation in order to ensure that millions of teachers, postal workers, firefighters, law enforcement officers, and other dedicated civil servants get the benefits they have earned, says U.S. Senator Jack Reed. “I’m glad we were able to finally deliver this correction for millions of hardworking Americans and I’m committed to protecting and strengthening Social Security to ensure all Americans are able to retire with the dignity and financial security they have earned,” he said.
Max Richman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM) called for passage of this bill because it because it removes an unfairness in the retirement system by allowing teachers, firefighters, and police officers (among others) and their families to collect Social Security benefits.
Before the Senate vote, NCPSSM announced its opposition of any amendment that diluted this legislation or cut Social Security benefits in any way — including raising the retirement age. The Washington, DC-based Social Security advocacy group circulated a letter to all 100 U.S. Senators before the vote on Dec. 21, opposing any efforts to raise the retirement age.
According to Richtman, nearly 3 million public sector employees are on the verge of being able to receive the Social Security benefits they’ve earned — thanks to the United States Senate.
“We supported this bill because it removes an unfairness in the system by finally allowing teachers, firefighters, and police officers (among others) and their families to collect full Social Security benefits. Many of our own members and supporters made it clear that they want the WEP & GPO repealed,” says Richtman.
“The Senate vote delivers us to the doorstep of a long-sought goal — to restore fairness to a system that has worked incredibly well for nearly 90 years to provide American workers with basic financial security,” says Richtman.
According to a statement issued by National Education Association, Martha Karlovetz estimated that these discriminatory laws have cost her more than a hundred thousand dollars since 1995, when she retired from teaching at the Parkway School District outside St. Louis, Missouri. And if her husband had passed away before her, the laws would have meant that Karlovetz would have received only $14 per month in survivor benefits, even though her husband paid Social Security taxes throughout his 40-year career at McDonnell-Douglas/Boeing.
“The repeal of GPO and WEP is truly a historic win for all public employees and their families,” said Karlovetz. “These unfair provisions have taken a great toll. I have lost well over $110,000 in benefits earned in the 15 years I worked and paid into Social Security before becoming a teacher in Missouri, a GPO-WEP state. Now that we have helped achieve this victory, educators like me can breathe easier. For some, this is truly life-changing,” she says.
With the 119th Congress fast approaching, Congressional lawmakers must work together to fix a financially ailing Social Security Program. Just like they did to pass bipartisan legislation to right a wrong affecting millions of retirees and public sector workers.
To see Nov. 8 CBO correspondence to Sen. Grassley as to impact of S. 82 on the Social Security program, go to https://www.cbo.gov/system/files/2024-11/60876-HR82.pdf
To download a CRS report that details Social Security beneficiaries affected by both the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), to https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R45845
Tag Archives for CBO
Trump’s Campaign Pledges Could impact Social Security’s Financial Stability
Published in Blackstone Valley Call & Times on November 4, 2024
When voters go to the polls on Tuesday, they should know that Social Security will only be nine years away from insolvency when the next President takes office. According to projections by the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the law calls for a 23 percent cut in Social Security reductions in fiscal year 2034. Restoring solvency in the retirement program over the next 75 years would require the equivalent of reducing all future benefits by 24 percent or increasing revenue by 35 percent, says CBO.
As the presidential campaign winds down, with voting taking place on Nov. 4, 2024, Vice President Kamala Harris calls for protecting and expanding Social Security while former President Trump says would “fight for and protect Social Security.” But both candidates don’t provide a specific detail plan as to how to fix the financially ailing Social Security program, despite the looming $16,500 cut facing a typical couple retiring just before the projected insolvency.
But campaign promises, if enacted, can have a devastating impact on the Social Security Programs ability to pay all future benefits.
Analysis Shows Campaign Promises Weaken Social Security
A new report, “What Would the Trump Campaign’s Mean for Social Security,” released by US Budget Watch 2024, a project the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget (CRFB), details how former President Donald Trump’s proposed policies, if enacted, would advance Social Security’s insolvency by three years, from FY 2034 to FY 2031 – hastening the next President’s insolvency timeline by one-third. CRFB is a non-partisan government watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. that analyses the fiscal impact of federal budget and fiscal issues.
According to CRFB’s new report, released on Oct. 21, 2024, Trump campaign pledges would weaken Social Security’s financial stability by ending taxation of Social Security benefits. This would eliminate a revenue stream currently used to help finance Social Security. If enacted, the analysis notes that Trump’s plans would increase Social Security’s ten-year cash shortfall by $2.3 trillion through FY 2035. Additionally, ending all taxes on overtime pay and tips, would also reduce the payroll taxes accruing to the Social Security trust funds.
CRFB’s analysis also predicted that Trump’s policies would worsen Social Security’s finances by increasing Social Security’s annual shortfall by roughly 50 percentin FY 2035, from 3.6 to 4 percent of payroll.
Trump’s calls for large tariffs on imports, which would either increase cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) through higher inflation or reduce taxable payroll would impact the financial viability of the Social Security program. Enhancing boarder security and deporting unauthorized immigrants would reduce the number of immigrant workers paying into the Social Security Trust funds.
CRFB also questions whether Trump’s fixes would reduce Social Security’s long-term shortfalls.
From the Sideline…
According to Aimee Picchi is associate managing editor for CBS MoneyWatch, the personal finance website received a statement from Trump spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt disputing the CRFB analysis: “The so-called experts at CRFB have been consistently wrong throughout the years. President Trump delivered on his promise to protect Social Security in his first term, and President Trump will continue to strongly protect Social Security in his second term,” she said.
Additionally, Leavitt told CBS Money Watch that Trump’s plans for “unleashing American energy, slashing job-killing regulations, and adopting pro-growth America First tax and trade policies” would put Social Security “on a stronger footing for generations to come.”
“President Trump has said he would close Social Security’s long-term shortfall by increasing drilling for oil and natural gas and by growing the economy. However, we’ve shown that increased energy exploration is unlikely to have a meaningful effect on Social Security – even if the gains were deposited into the trust fund. We’ve also shown that it would require unrealistically fast economic growth to close Social Security’s existing long-term funding gap,” says CRFB’s analysis. .
“Faster growth can reduce Social Security’s shortfall [says Trump]. But based on available analyses and understanding the effects of President Trump’s agenda on the national debt, it is unlikely his plans would significantly boost the size of the economy, and many estimates find his plans would reduce long-term out-put long-term output,” adds CRFB.
Responding to CRFB’s analysis, in a statement Harris-Walz 2024 spokesperson Joseph Costello said: “Vice President Harris is committed to protecting Social Security benefits and is the only candidate who will actually fight for seniors, not just pay them lip service on the campaign trail.
Expand Social Security Caucus House Co-Chairs Reps. John B. Larso (D -CT), Raúl Grijalva (D-AZ), and Debbie Dingell (D – MI) )call Trump’s campaign pledges “a no starter.” If implemented, they would eliminate revenue streams used to help finance Social Security and accelerate the depletion of Social Security funding,” they say.
“Maintaining the solvency of Social Security is vital for promoting economic security, and a moral obligation to honor the commitments made to those who have contributed to the system throughout their working lives. To safeguard the future of Social Security, we cannot allow for Trump’s policies to gut these hard-earned benefits and instead must engage in a simple reform like the Social Security 2100 Act that fixes insolvency by having the wealthy pay into the system the same as everyone else,” note the Co-Chairs.
And Max Richtman, President and CEO, National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, gives his thought’s to Trump’s campaign pledges: “We oppose his proposal to eliminate the taxes on benefits that help to fund the system, and any other measure that would deprive Social Security of much needed revenue,” he says.
“Once again, Trump postures as a friend of the working class, then puts forward plans that endanger the benefits working people have earned — and depend on in retirement. It is irresponsible for a presidential candidate to advocate plans that would hasten the depletion of the Social Security trust fund reserves, triggering an even larger automatic benefit cut if that happens,” adds Richtman.
According to Richtman, Trump’s plans reveal his “overall recklessness” with Social Security. “He suspended the payroll tax that funds the program during Covid — and hoped it would be eliminated. His White House budgets would have slashed Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) by billions of dollars. He said earlier this year that he was ‘open’ to ‘cutting entitlements,’ then tried to walk it back. He once called Social Security a ‘Ponzi Scheme,” he adds.
“Time and again, Trump has chosen political expediency without considering – or caring about – the consequences. Despite his posturing, Donald Trump is no friend to Social Security or American seniors,” charges Richtman.
Looking Back on Efforts to Fix Social Security
“The history and reasoning in both Congress and the White House on protecting Social Security is still important and persuasive– as it was to President Obama, and House and Senate leaders Pelosi and Reid,” says Robert Weiner, former chief of Staff of the House Aging Committee and later a White House senior staffer
“The great Claude Pepper helped forge the Reagan-O’Neill-Pepper deal of 1983 that stopped cuts and even partial insolvency through 2034,” says Weiner, noting that he remembers Pepper saying “over my dead body” to cabinet officers and congressional leaders who wanted to impose severe cuts.
Weiner noted that Nancy Pelosi said “First, do no harm” to the would-be cutters right through all the years of her Speakership and leadership. “’We did that’ to stopping the Social Security cutters, she told Weiner.
Senate Leader Harry Reid’s staff removed the term ‘reform’ from his Social Security talking points when they were given the documents and realized that the program has a surplus, not a deficit,” noted Weiner. “These great leaders knew that Social Security ‘reform’ meant cuts, breaking Social Security’s promise to American seniors, and that the deficit was a myth and excuse to take from the program and its two-trillion-plus dollar surplus,” he said.
“And House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer told me that congressional leaders knew that, if necessary, if the time comes, and it’s not now, a slight tweak by Congress to raise the income level for tax payments could fix it, if necessary, if the growing economy hadn’t already maintained full solvency,” says Weiner.
“Let’s hope this kind of sanity and sensitivity continues to prevail,” Weiner concludes.
https://www.crfb.org/blogs/what-would-trump-campaign-plans-mean-social-security
House Fails to Pass GOP’s Balanced Budget Amendment
Published in Woonsocket Call on April 15, 2018
Following the recent passage of the $ 1.3 trillion omnibus government spending bill and the massive GOP tax cut bill that added more than a $1 trillion to the nation’s despite economic growth, and with midterm elections looming, the House GOP leadership quickly acted to tackle the spiraling nation’s deficit by bringing H.J. Res. 2, a balanced budget amendment (BBA), to the floor for a vote. Simply put, the amendment requires that total annual outlays not exceed total annual receipts. It also requires a true majority of each chamber to pass tax increases and a three-fifths majority to raise the debt limit.
House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.), introduced H.J. Res. 2, which he notes is nearly identical to text in legislation that passed the House in 1995, but failed in the Senate by one vote. This would be the Virginia Congressman’s last chance to push for passage of a BBA because he is not seeking re-election at the end of this term.
Last October. House Speake Paul Ryan (R-WI) agreed to vote on Goodlatte’s BBA, in exchange for conservative votes from the Republican Study Committee, chaired by Mark Walker (R-NC), on a procedural budget measure needed for Republicans to move forward on tax reform.
BBA Gets Thumbs Down by House Lawmakers
As expect, the House GOP’s BBA was defeated by a vote of 233 to 184, falling far short (by 57 lawmakers) of the two-thirds vote required for passage of an amendment under the Constitution. Six Republicans voted against it while only seven Democrats voted for it. But, the GOP’s BBA had little chance of becoming law because the required support of two-thirds in the Senate and Democratic Senators unified in their opposition, and finally the requirement that 38 states ratify the constitutional amendment.
“Our extraordinary fiscal crisis demands an extraordinary solution. We must rise above partisanship and join together to send a balanced budget amendment to the states for ratification.
I urge all my colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment and in freeing our children and grandchildren from the burden of a crippling debt they had no hand in creating, so they can be free to chart their own futures for themselves and for their own posterity,” Goodlatte said during the House floor on Thursday evening.
During the four-hour debate, House Republican Conference Chair Cathy McMorris Rodgers (R-WA), asked Congress to balance its budget like typical families do. She said,“Families across the country sit down at their kitchen tables every month and make tough decisions to balance their budget so that they can make ends meet. Just like American families, the federal government should spend within its means. A Balanced Budget Amendment, which requires a two-third majority in both chambers of Congress to pass, is a needed and important mechanism to restore fiscal discipline. “
On the House Floor, Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi called the BBA “a brazen assault on seniors, children and working families – the American people we were elected to protect.”
“Make no mistake, this GOP con job has nothing to do with fiscal responsibility. It is not balanced in terms of money because of their GOP Tax Scam that’s placed us in a bad spot fiscally and it’s not balanced in terms of values,” says Pelosi, noting that GOP fiscal responsibility comes down to “ransacking Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security and breaking our nation’s sacred promise of dignity and security for seniors and families.”
Before the House vote on the BBA, Darrell M. West, vice president and director of Governance Studies at the Washington, D.C.-based the Brookings Institution, stated “I would be surprised if the bill made it through Congress.” He added, “It’s hypocritical for Republicans to support a balanced budget amendment after they cut taxes by $1.5 trillion and added significantly to the federal deficit. Voters will see through that and understand the vote is about scoring political points and not making good public policy.”
House Lawmakers Bombarded with Opposition Letters
Days before the House vote the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare (NCPSSM), AARP expressed opposition to the passage of the BBA by sending a letter to the Hill, urging House lawmakers to reject the GOP’s constitutional amendment. Hundreds of aging, health care, educational, unions, and business groups were cited in the April 12, 2018 issue of the The Congressional Record as opposing the amendment.
Max Richtman, NCPSSM’s President and CEO, wrote House lawmakers warning that a BBA would unravel the nation’s social safety net by making gigantic entitlement cuts by blocking benefit payments from the Social Security and Medicare Part A trust funds because “all federal expenditures, including these earned benefits, would have to be covered by revenue collected in the same year. “
A BBA would also force Congress to make huge spending cuts to Medicare Parts B, C and D, Medicaid, and many other social safety net programs for seniors, to rein in the nation’s deficit and pushing lawmakers to make “massive new tax cuts.,” says Richtman.
“While the balanced budget amendment did not dictate any particular approach to deficit reduction, by altering established Congressional voting procedures it would have increased the likelihood that the fiscal policies adopted in coming decades would favor the well-off at the expense of middle- and low-income Americans. The amendment would have required a two-thirds vote of the full membership of the House and Senate to raise taxes. Spending cuts, by contrast, would continue to require only a majority of those present and voting and could be passed on a voice vote,” observed Richtman.
Finally, Richtman noted that the risk of a federal government default would increase because a BBA requires a three-fifths vote of both the House and the Senate to raise the national debt limit, rather than the current simple majority.
AARP Executive Vice President Nancy LeaMond also expressed opposition to the BBA in a letter to House lawmakers charging that the amendment would impact the solvency of Social Security and Medicare, “subjecting both programs to potentially deep cuts without regard to the impact on the health and financial security of individuals.” Programs that provide meals or heating assistance to low income seniors would also see available resources diminish, she predicted, she said.
The lack of a dependable Social Security and Medicare benefit [if a BBA was passed] would be devastating for millions of Americans. Social Security is currently the principal source of income for half of older American households receiving benefits, and roughly one in five households depend on Social Security benefits for nearly all (90 percent or more) of their income. Over 50 million Americans depend on Medicare, half of whom have incomes of less than $24,150. Even small fluctuations in premiums and cost sharing would have a significant impact on the personal finances of older and disabled Americans,” said LeaMond.
Midterm Elections Just Six Months Away
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) predicted early this week that the annual government’s deficit is projected to be $ 1 trillion next year. And the nation’s $21 trillion debt would skyrocket to 33 trillion by 20028. With the midterm elections just six months away, combined with the CBO’s recently released economic analysis, the Republican party’s image as being the fiscally responsible political party is now shattered.
Even controlling both chambers of Congress and with President Donald Trump in the White House, GOP lawmakers must now look for political issues that may resonate with their constituents. Further attempts to dismantle Socials Security and Medicare may not be the way to go.
Herb Weiss 