From Roll Call:
Members of the ultraconservative House Freedom Caucus orchestrated an unusual play on the House floor during a rare election night, 5 p.m. pro forma session that resulted in killing, at least for now, a broadly popular bill that was set to hit the floor as soon as next week.
Reps. Garret Graves, R-La., and Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., had successfully rounded up the 218 signatures needed for a discharge petition to bypass GOP leaders and bring up bipartisan legislation that would repeal two long-standing provisions docking Social Security benefits for certain retirees. They were set to make their move as soon as Tuesday night by triggering a two-day clock to bring to the floor the special rule for immediate consideration of the bill. ...
Then the Freedom Caucus, which opposes the measure’s $196 billion cost over a decade, intervened.
What happened: Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris, R-Md., a more or less local member from the Eastern Shore, presided over the pro forma session, which lasted all of seven minutes.
During the brief session he recognized outgoing Rep. Bob Good, R-Va. — the former Freedom Caucus chair who lost his primary — for a unanimous consent request. Good’s request to lay the Social Security bill on the table was agreed to by unanimous consent, with no one else in the chamber to object.
The effect of laying the bill on the table in this context, under House rules, has the same effect as defeating a bill on the floor; it is dead for the time being. Since the discharge petition was actually filed on the rule for consideration, not the bill itself, the rule could still be called up for a vote under discharge procedures, which if adopted would remove the bill from the table and allow a vote.
Alternatively, a brand new, identical bill could simply be introduced — as early as this Friday’s pro forma session — and that measure put up for a vote under suspension of the rules as soon as next week. ...
Harris’ move to recognize Good goes against the “Speaker’s announced policies” in exercising authorities under House rules, which stipulate that such UC requests can only be made after receiving assurances that the majority and minority leadership of both the House and the relevant committees have no objection.
In fact, before Harris recognized Good, House Parliamentarian Jason Smith can be heard on the microphone saying: “The chair will not entertain the gentleman’s request. The chair cannot entertain the gentleman’s request.” ...
11 comments:
Welcome to a new world where the rich get richer. WEP and GPO elimination are a distant memory.
In all seriousness, did anybody really expect this to actually go anywhere?
No. Nor should it. WEP AND GPO are completely fair and the only people who say otherwise don’t actually understand why it was implemented and how it’s applied to benefits.
Every time I get a whiny baby crying about how unfair WEP and GPO I have to explain how the formula works and why it is fair. These things should NEVER EVER be repealed! Get rid of step child benefits, simplify widow’s comps and get rid of all divorced spouse benefits. And of course raise the cap on SS taxes.
Right on. Changing WEP and GPO would just be a giveaway. They were created for reasons of fairness. Those factors have not changed.
Raise the cap? That train left the station on Election Day.
The formula for the WEP and GPO may not be perfect, and could be made more exact, but the provisions are completely justified based upon the benefit formula.
Looks like might still have a chance - parliamentary error.
https://www.govexec.com/pay-benefits/2024/11/house-finally-appears-set-repeal-wep-and-gpo/400921/?oref=ge-home-top-story
Did you read the whole article?
It remains unclear how the measure would fare in the Senate, where companion legislation has the support of 63 senators but languished in committee since its introduction last year. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the measure would cost $196 billion in additional Social Security benefit outlays over the next decade
How is speeding up the date of Social Security’s retirement fund’s insolvency, increasing the size of the automatic benefit cuts that will hit seniors, and adding $200 billion to the deficit a good plan for seniors or for the country? Yet that is exactly what the Social Security Fairness Act would do.
Social Security is just nine years away from insolvency, and our seniors need a fix fast. Congress should not vote to make the problem worse.
The WEP and GPO were created to prevent Social Security from overpaying certain beneficiaries who also collect state and local pensions, which they paid into instead of paying Social Security taxes during their employment for state and local governments. These provisions aren’t perfect, and there are lots of ideas to reform them. But repealing them altogether would move in exactly the wrong direction
I can see modifying WEP and GPO so as not to penalize people with small pensions so much. But the main beneficiaries of repealing the law are going to be government retirees that are receiving fairly large pensions. Repealing GPO would be more egregious than just repealing WEP.
Post a Comment