Chuck Schumer, the Senate Democratic leader, has promised that there will be a vote on the bill to eliminate the Windfall Elimination Provision and Government Pension Offsets which reduce Social Security benefits for those receiving pension benefits not based upon earnings upon which there had been no FICA withheld. This is mostly former employees of state and local governments which did not pay the FICA tax. The bill has already passed the House of Representatives.
Dec 12, 2024
Senate Vote Coming On WEP-GPO Bill
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
Eliminating WEP and GPO will only make matters worse for the future of Social Security. This is another example of a small group of activist dictating policy. They knew the rules going into their careers.
This issue is almost as misleading as the complaints about the "notch". It is hard to believe that there are not a sufficient number of Senators that understand the issue to bury this nonsense. It's already been shown that there are not in the House.
Saying "no FICA withheld" is misleading. The provision applies to those who also worked part of their career under Social Security, but benefits are reduced by this provision.
Two of my siblings will benefit if this bill passes as they had long careers as government employees but also worked in the private sector for a much shorter period. I have tried to explain to them that the current system does not discriminate against them and have given them the rationale for the provision. As you might expect, their reaction is “show me the money” and they are not interested in the logic of the current law. To paraphrase a famous quotation, “it is difficult to get a retired government employee to understand something when their windfall depends on their not understanding it.”
Co-sponsoring a bill isn't the same as saying the co-sponsor will vote for it. In fact, members of Congress routinely co-sponsor legislation that they don't agree with and don't end up voting for. All politicians are weaselly backstabbers like that.
I predict they'll call the vote and one of the outgoing senators like Joe Manchin (i.e. that aren't running for re-election and thus don't care about political repercussions) will declare a filibuster against it. And, that a lot of so-called co-sponsors will not vote to end.
And, honestly, if this passes this law is going to be a chaotic nightmare for SSA to implement, given its current staffing and resource constraints. I know a lot of CSes were very lax in developing spousal claims and widow's claims for individuals totally offset by GPO, and thus the deemed filing rules are going to create a LOT of open application issues. And, that also leaves out the situation where someone not insured subject to GPO was told by SSA per policy not to file for spousal/widow's benefits if they wanted their Part B premiums to be held from their CSRS annuities (it isn't possible to withhold Part B from a CSRS annuity it for anyone technically entitled to an auxiliary/survivor benefit on another SSN for technical reasons). I can also forsee litigation in the future for people who were subject to total GPO offset who were discouraged from filing for survivor benefits as well (my own mother was one of them).
It's fascinating the way that people not affected by the offset want the offset to continue. It's almost like when people without cars don't care if auto insurance rates go up. Who would have thought? How does that old saying go? Is it "As long as you have comfortable shoes, judge whoever you want and don't care about the shoes they wear"? Am I getting that right?
One of the suggestions to increase funding for Social Security is to end the exemption for the State or Local Employees, and the few remaining Federal Employees hired before 1985 from paying into Social Security . Interesting that none of the proposals for ending the WEP or GPO mention that at all.
NO, you don't have that right. Those who understand how the WEP and GPO work and understand that this is just a grab by people who choose to see themselves as aggrieved, are against this change. the funding of the SS system overall is of critical concern to anyone who is collecting or who will eventually collect benefits and a change to benefit those who benefited from not paying into Social Security in return for negotiated pension benefits that accounted for the lack of Social Security should not now be allowed to change the rules that they, or their unions, accepted at the time. Remember, not all local employees chose the exemption and if their unions did not explain the problem at the time, shame on them.
I'm shocked more people aren't highly offended that WEP and GPO may be repealed. We're such a giveaway society that apparently people are immune to the concerns. It's obscene that suddenly the long retired nurses, teachers, and fire fighters suddenly are poverty stricken and need this giveaway. It's simply not true. What's next?
How many people have their Social Security benefits reduced or offset because they receive Union Pensions? Imagine how much money the trust fund would save by keeping part of those Social Security earned benefits because those retirees or survivors also receive a privately earned pension. If that is not OK with you, then please explain why it is OK to offset Social Security benefits because of a government earned pension.
I’m waiting.
Post a Comment