There are enough signatures on a bill in the House of Representatives in Washington, D.C., to force a vote on it. The bill would get rid of rules that lower Social Security payments for some retirees who also get pension income.
A news conference was held outside the Capitol on Thursday morning by Representatives Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Garret Graves (R-La.) to celebrate the 206 signatures on a petition for discharge.
There were groups there that spoke for police officers, firefighters, postal workers, teachers, and other government workers who would be touched by these rules. By Thursday afternoon, there were 218 signatures on the bill, which meant it had to be put to a vote.
A new bill will likely make significant changes in Social Security benefits
The bipartisan Social Security Fairness Act would get rid of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) and Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) rules that make it harder for over 3 million Americans to get their Social Security payments.
Graves says that they are working together on a project to turn around a situation that has been wrong for over 40 years. He also said that people in this situation who have important jobs and make a big difference in our community are being discriminated against.
People who get pension income from government jobs for which they did not pay Social Security payroll taxes have their Social Security benefits cut by the Windfall Elimination Provision, even though they paid into the program and got benefits from other jobs.
The WEP affects about 2 million people who are retired and get Social Security. Also, federal, state, and local government workers who did not pay Social Security payroll taxes will have their spouse benefits cut because the government pension offset is taking away their benefits.
The GPO will have an effect on almost 800,000 seniors. Because of this, these rules may force workers who are touched to make tough choices about when to retire.
Lois Carson, head of the Ohio Association of Public School Employees, said at a news conference on Thursday that the restrictions made her think twice about how to support her family after her husband died.
Carson got money from his salary, but because she and her husband both worked for the government, she couldn’t get Social Security through the survivor program.
Carson said about this problem, “I work because this law will make me lose half of my money if I retire after 37 years.” Carson also says that a friend who quit as a public school teacher lost the $1,200 a month in Social Security benefits she was getting on her husband’s record.
Despite bipartisan efforts, the bill faces uncertainties
If the House votes on a bill that has 327 allies, it might pass. After that, it would be looked at by the Senate, which has 62 supporters. Both the Senate and the House have a lot of work to do before the end of the year, which can slow down the progress of the effort.
Some experts say that getting rid of the WEP and GPO rules might not be the best idea, even though most agree that they could be changed to be more fair.
The move is thought to cost about $196 billion over 10 years by the Congressional Budget Office. It’s already clear that Social Security’s trust fund isn’t enough. The program’s total funds are expected to run out in 2035, when 83% of payments are due.
Some people are worried that getting rid of the rules will give workers in both the public and private sectors a better way to replace their lost income than people who have paid into Social Security their whole lives.
A senior scholar at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities named Paul Van de Water said that people should usually get some Social Security benefits based on how much they have worked in both covered and uncovered jobs. He did say, though, that the real question would be how much.
Also See:- Only these pensioners will benefit from the new: Enhanced Social Security benefits