The bill to end the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset has passed its final Congressional step and will become law once President Biden signs it.
I have a few questions about this:
The Hill reports that the bill to end the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset passed a crucial vote in the Senate yesterday 73-27. This isn’t final passage but the margin suggests that the bill is likely to pass. It has already been passed the House of Representatives.
In other legislative news, President-elect Trump seems to be ordering a government shutdown. At least he’s ordering Republican legislators not to vote for the Continuing Resolution they just negotiated with Democrats. The GOP can’t pass the CR without Democratic votes in this Congress and probably not in the next. Most of Social Security will stay open if the shutdown happens beginning December 20 but there would be no money to continue paying salaries for long. I have no idea what the endgame is here.
If you voted for Trump, this is the chaos you voted for.
The bill to end the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset, which has already passed the House of Representatives, is expected to reach the Senate floor today.
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.
It happened quietly but the bill to end the Govern Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision passed in the House of Representives Tuesday night. Its fate in the Senate is uncertain.
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.” ...
From The Hill:
A group of House Republicans is making a rare move that would force a vote on a bill to reform aspects of Social Security, stirring unrest in the conference.
The bill at the heart of the push, also dubbed the Social Security Fairness Act, seeks to do away with the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), a proposal that backers on both sides of the aisle argue is long overdue.
The bill enjoys support from more than 100 House Republicans, and almost four dozen have cosigned the effort to use what’s known as a discharge petition to force consideration of the bill — and the strategy is rubbing some in the conference the wrong way.
“In a well-run Congress, no legislator signs a discharge petition if you’re a majority. That is a rule that is never broken,” Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-Wis.) told The Hill. “And the fact that 47 of my colleagues signed a discharge petition shows that we have an utter lack of discipline.” ...
Republicans say the matter was a topic of debate in a conference meeting earlier this week. ...
Regardless of the House vote, it's very unlikely that this legislation will be voted on in the Senate.
...
Legislation to repeal the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset is nearing the finish line in the House.
Just over a week after it was filed, a discharge petition for the Social Security Fairness Act has reached the 218-signature threshold needed to force the bill to a floor vote.
Thirteen House lawmakers added their signatures to the petition on Thursday, after Reps. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) and Garret Graves (R-Pa.) gathered advocates outside the Capitol building to urge their colleagues to push their legislation forward. …
Don’t get excited. This has no hope of passage in the Senate in this Congress.
From a press release issued by the House Ways and Means Committee:
The Social Security Administration (SSA) will be forced to streamline their processes for Americans whose Social Security numbers (SSNs) have been compromised thanks to bipartisan legislation passed by the U.S. House of Representatives. H.R. 3784, the Improving Social Security’s Service to Victims of Identity Theft Act, was introduced by Ways and Means Social Security Subcommittee Chairman Drew Ferguson (R-GA) and Ranking Member John Larson (D-CT) and was passed unanimously by the Ways and Means Committee. ...
[The bill] requires the SSA to provide victims of identity theft with a single point of contact at the agency when the misuse of their SSN results in the need to resolve an issue or issues with the SSA or when their Social Security card is lost in the mail. ...
From The Sacramento Bee:
Trying to get through to Social Security on its 800 number? Be very, very patient. Wait times have been averaging roughly 35 minutes. In September, the latest data available, the average time on hold was 34.7 minutes. The shortest average wait so far this year came in May, 28.8 minutes. The longest was in March, 39.8 minutes. ...
Reps. Ken Calvert, R-Corona, and Henry Cuellar, D-Texas, have introduced the “Stuck on Hold Act,” which would require the Social Security Administration and Department of Veterans Affairs, which has also experienced customer service issues, to tell callers the estimated wait times. If the wait is longer than 15 minutes, the agency would give the consumer the option of receiving an automated call back when it is their turn in line. The agencies would have up to a year to put the new system into effect. ...
At Social Security, “We are doing what we can to improve phone service,” said Darren Lutz, an agency spokesman, who cited the hiring of new phone agents ... . The agency has moved to a new phone system, which Lutz said “allows us to receive more calls and provides callers with estimated wait times, and will soon provide an option for some callers to receive a call back instead of waiting in a queue. “ Social Security plans more improvements, he said, though ”to improve our phone service we will need sufficient and sustained funding.“ ...
From a press release:
In the latest sign of strong momentum for U.S. Senator Sherrod Brown’s (D-OH) bipartisan legislation to fix the Social Security Income program, the executives of the eight leading banks in the United States endorsed the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act. The legislation ... is the first bipartisan, bicameral bill to increase SSI’s asset limits and ensure disabled and elderly Americans can work and save for emergencies without putting at risk the benefits they rely on to live.
During the U.S. Senate Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee’s annual hearing with the big bank executives, Brown described how SSI’s outdated eligibility rules lock beneficiaries in poverty and that his bill – co-sponsored by BHUA Committee member Sen. Rounds and already supported by JP Morgan Chase – would raise the asset limit. When asked if the executives would join in supporting the bill, each of them confirmed they supported the measure. ...
Introduced in September 2023, the bill is also endorsed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Microsoft, Transunion, the Kroger Company, the Food Association, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company, AARP, Bipartisan Policy Center, The Arc, National Association of Evangelicals, Faith and Freedom Coalition, Jewish Federations of North America, Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, NETWORK Lobby for Catholic Social Justice, American Academy of Pediatrics, Autism Society of America, CEO Commission for Disability Employment, Cure SMA, Coalition on Human Needs, Justice in Aging, Muscular Dystrophy Association, National Down Syndrome Society, Paralyzed Veterans of America, Prosperity Now, Social Security Works, and nearly 300 other local and national organizations. ...
The description of a bill passed by the House Ways and Means Committee:
The Clergy Act
Introduced by former Speaker Kevin McCarthy (CA-20) and Representative Mike Thompson (CA-04), H.R. 6068 creates a window for clergy members to opt back into contributing to and receiving Social Security.
- Creates a time-limited, voluntary open season for members of the clergy to revoke their Social Security exemption and opt into Social Security coverage.
- Under current law, members of the clergy may apply for an exemption from paying certain taxes on income associated with the performance of ministerial services. The exemption also applies to receiving future benefits. Once the exemption is made, it currently cannot be reversed. Roughly 2,000 members of the clergy receive an exemption every year.
If this advances, and I wouldn't bet on even such innocuous legislation advancing, it may attract amendments which would make it more interesting but which could also cause it to fail.
From a press release:
Today U.S. Senators Sherrod Brown (D-OH) and Bill Cassidy (R-LA) announced the first bipartisan, bicameral push in decades to reform the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, which has not been updated in nearly 40 years and currently punishes older and disabled Americans for saving for emergencies and their futures. The senators’ bipartisan SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act would update SSI’s asset limits for the first time since the 1980s to ensure disabled and elderly Americans are able to prepare themselves for a financial emergency without putting the benefits they rely on to live at risk.
In addition to Brown and Cassidy, U.S. Representatives Brian Higgins (D-NY-26) and Brian Fitzpatrick (R-PA-1) will introduce companion legislation in the House. U.S. Senators Ron Wyden (D-OR), Susan Collins (R-ME), Bob Casey (D-PA), and James Lankford (R-OK) are original Senate cosponsors. ...
Of course, the bill stands no chance in this Congress. The GOP controls the House and the GOP would filibuster in the Senate. Sorry, but there's nowhere near enough Republican support in Congress for this to advance. Maybe, maybe, I can squint at it and imagine the bill progressing after the 2024 election, but only if the Democrats have an overwhelming victory.
From a press release:
Senate Finance Committee Chairman Ron Wyden (D-OR), and Senator Bill Cassidy (R-LA), today introduced legislation to remove a Social Security work disincentive for Americans with disabilities. ...
If an adult has a severe medical condition that began before age 22, they may be eligible for a Social Security benefit called the Disabled Adult Child (DAC) benefit. Their benefits are based on their parent’s Social Security earnings, in the same way that benefits of a child under age 18 would be. However, under current law some of these young adults fear that if they try to work they will lose future DAC benefits, which are often higher than any benefit they may qualify on their own. This fear inhibits the ability of Americans with disabilities to explore their ability to work as they transition to adult life.
The Work Without Worry Act promotes financial security by ensuring that any earnings from work – no matter how much – will not prevent an individual from receiving a Social Security DAC benefit from their parent’s work history if they have an eligible medical condition that began before age 22. ...
This change is estimated to improve the lives of nearly 6,000 individuals with disabilities over the next 10 years and would have no significant effect on the Social Security Trust Funds. ...
Now, how about we do something about the marriage penalty that cuts off DAC if a recipient marries.
Yesterday, the House Ways and Means Committee marked up two minor bills that would affect the Social Security Administration in small ways. One would allow minors whose Social Security numbers have been compromised to obtain new Social Security numbers. The other would provide for a single point of contact at Social Security for those whose Social Security numbers have been compromised. I'm sure the first is debatable and the second is pointless without additional funding.
I wouldn't bet on either bill advancing in the Senate. If they do, you never know what might get added.
From Pamela Herd writing on Substack:
... SNAP [commonly known as Food Stamps] is a critical safety valve for people trying to access Social Security Disability programs — for which delays in benefit receipt can extend into years. The expansion in work requirements for this age group [as part of the debt limit extension bill just agreed to by the President and the Speaker of the House] seems innocuous, but they are highly consequential. Even those who dislike work requirements don’t fully understand the ramifications. ...
But wait! Aren’t disabled people excluded from the work requirements?
Yes, but this is where administrative burdens matter. In order to prove you are disabled, you must become eligible for Social Security Disability, either Social Security Disability Insurance or Supplemental Security Income. But this process takes significant amounts of effort and time. ...
The net result is that it can take years to prove disability in order to access either SSDI or SSI, as well as now prove that you can’t meet the work requirements for SNAP.
And the wait times have been steadily increasing. Between 2014 and 2022, average wait times rose from 106 days to 183 days. The average beneficiary now waits six months to access their benefit, and *prove* their disability. ...
By the way, Johnson argues that if annual appropriations are good enough for the Department of Defense, they should be good enough for Social Security. If Social Security were to receive the whooping budget increases that the Department of Defense has been receiving, Johnson's idea might not be so bad!
From Federal News Network:
… The Social Security Fairness Act, introduced by Rep. Rodney Davis (R-Ill.) and sponsored by Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.) now has more than 290 co-sponsors, more than enough to force a House floor vote.
The bipartisan legislation would eliminate two provisions of the 1935 Social Security Act that reduce or eliminate the Social Security benefits of more than 2 million retirees.
One is the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduces the Social Security benefits of local, state and federal retirees who worked in Social Security-covered employment — i.e. private-sector jobs — and also received a government annuity from their non-Social Security-covered government employment.
The other provision is the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which reduces the Social Security benefits of spouses, widows and widowers with pensions from a federal, state or local government job. …
Spoiler alert: This stands little or no chance of passing the Senate in this Congress.
Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) has won a key Republican ally in his quest to improve one of the most outdated social welfare programs in the United States.
This week, Brown joined forces with Sen. Rob Portman (R-Ohio) to announce their co-sponsorship of a bill updating the Supplemental Security Income program, which provides benefits to nearly 8 million Americans with disabilities.
The program pays less than $700 per month for the average recipient meeting its strict eligibility criteria, which include a requirement that recipients have less than $2,000 in their bank accounts. The Brown-Portman measure, called the SSI Savings Penalty Elimination Act, would boost the asset limit from $2,000 to $10,000 for individuals and peg the limit to inflation. ...
Getting the change into law, however, will be no easy task. Brown attempted unsuccessfully to hitch the measure to a big social spending bill Democrats tried to write last year, but Democrats omitted the proposal even before the bill collapsed. Its $8 billion cost is relatively small, but not exactly chump change, given current attitudes toward spending on Capitol Hill.
Having a Republican on board makes passage a bit more plausible. Brown and Portman said they would try to attach their bill to bigger pieces of legislation Congress may pass in the coming weeks. ...
The Brown-Portman bill would boost the limit to $10,000 for individuals and $20,000 for married couples, eliminating the marriage penalty. Lankford said he would need to see the bill’s text, but that he had been interested in addressing the penalty for years.
Brown has pushed to boost SSI’s meager benefits and limitations on earned income as part of a broader bill but said he would take what he can get in partnership with Portman. ...
Brown needs not just one but at least ten Republican votes to pass this as a stand-alone bill because of the filibuster in the Senate. Unfortunately, the enthusiasm for this bill seems limited even among Democrats. I have no idea what bigger piece of legislation may be forthcoming that this could be attached to. I hope there is one. The enthusiasm in the House of Representatives also seems limited. Is the reason the enthusiasm is so limited a perception that since this is a poverty program that it must be primarily something affecting African-Americans? That notion is not only offensive; it's inaccurate. Most people getting SSI are white. However, the awful "welfare queen" prejudices die hard.
 |
| Click on image to view full size |
Now, if this could also be done for other refugees!
