Currently, a bill passed by the House aimed at reforming certain aspects of Social Security is awaiting action in the Senate as uncertainty surrounds its future. The House approved the legislation, designed to eliminate rules that proponents argue have unfairly reduced benefits for some public service workers, by a margin earlier this month. However, concerns are growing regarding its prospects in the Senate, especially with a new Congress on the horizon.
Rep. Garret Graves (R-La.), who co-authored the bill, remarked before the Thanksgiving recess, “There’s been some talk about trying to make it part of the end-of-the-year negotiation. I think that’s really an effort to kill it.”
He expressed confidence that the bill, which received nearly 300 votes in the House, has sufficient support in the Senate to pass independently. Nevertheless, he cautioned that any alternative approach could lead to a slow demise for the legislation, suggesting that this outcome might be intentional.
Social Security reform sparks debate on fairness for public service retirees
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). These tax regulations are designed to prevent individuals who have spent good portions of their careers in public service from receiving both their pensions and higher Social Security benefits. Additionally, the GPO reduces benefits for spouses who receive government pensions.
There have been instances where these policies resulted in unfair adjustments for beneficiaries, intensifying calls for either reform or a complete repeal of the provisions. Graves, along with Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Senators Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) and Susan Collins (R-Maine), recently sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) requesting prompt consideration of the bill.
They wrote, “For the first time in history, you have the opportunity to bring this bill across the finish line. We urge you, on behalf of the nearly 2.5 million retirees impacted by WEP and GPO in every state across the nation, to bring the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R.82) before the U.S. Senate for a vote.” The Hill has reached out to Schumer and McConnell’s offices for their responses.
This letter followed the measure’s passage in the House, which was not without its share of drama. Despite the bipartisan support for the bill, some Republicans criticized the strategy used by its advocates to advance it through the House.
The technique, known as a discharge petition, allows lawmakers to bypass leadership and force legislation onto the floor. While this method is sometimes employed by minority party members, success is rare since it requires a 218-signature threshold that necessitates defying leaders from the majority party.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) commented in September, “In a well-run Congress, no legislator signs a discharge petition if you’re a majority. That is a rule that is never broken,” adding that the fact that 47 of his colleagues signed such a petition indicated a lack of discipline.
Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.)
Prior to the congressional recess earlier this month, the bill faced scrutiny when members of the House Freedom Caucus attempted to block it. Adding to the frustration among some GOP members regarding the strategy, concerns have also been raised about the estimated cost of the bill, with the Congressional Budget Office projecting it could exceed $190 billion over a decade.
While experts agree that reforms to the rules are necessary, they caution against completely eliminating WEP and GPO. Andrew Biggs, a senior fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, stated, “They were devised at a time when the government didn’t have kind of all the data it could get today, so they had to have these sort of crude rules to do it.
On average, it’s about correct, meaning people are being treated more or less fairly. But it doesn’t necessarily work fairly in every case.” He argued that, while some individuals are treated unfairly, others benefit excessively, suggesting that the solution lies in fixing the formula rather than abolishing the rules altogether.
Although there is bipartisan support in the Senate for repealing these provisions, the next steps for the bill remain uncertain. Senate Finance Committee Chair Ron Wyden (D-Ore.), one of the more than 60 senators co-sponsoring the legislation, stated, “We’ll see,” when asked about the bill’s chances for passage.
He added, “Republicans, I think there’s still an open question about whether they want to do anything more than have a [continuing resolution] and leave town, but we’ll see.” As Congress faces a deadline of December 20 to pass legislation to avoid a government shutdown, lawmakers are anticipating the need for a short-term continuing resolution to maintain funding through early next year.
However, they are under pressure to address a tight schedule and numerous urgent matters before year-end. Wyden mentioned, “I’ve got an extensive list of priorities,” noting there are many bipartisan issues he hopes to resolve.
