The House is expected to vote on a Social Security-related bill this week to ensure benefits for workers who are also eligible for other pensions, despite a surprise move by hard-right Freedom Caucus leaders to derail the effort.
It’s a quick turnaround to salvage what had been a bipartisan effort to pass the bill, known as the Social Security Fairness Act, during Congress’ lame-duck post-election session.
What is the Social Security Fairness Act?
According to the Social Security Administration’s website, the Social Security Fairness Act would repeal the “government pensions offset,” or GPO, which reduces Social Security spousal or widow(er) benefits for those receiving noncovered pensions.
According to the summary, the bill also repeals the so-called “windfall elimination provision,” which “in some cases reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who also receive a pension or disability benefit from an employer that did not withhold Social Security taxes.”
Employers who do not withhold Social Security taxes from employee salaries, usually state and local governments or non-US employers, pay such pensions.
“The GPO reduces the spousal or widow(er) benefit by two-thirds of the monthly non-covered pension and can partially, or fully, offset an individual’s spousal/widow(er) benefit, depending on the amount of the non-covered pension,” according to the Social Security Administration website.
The bill would repeal the GPO provision while restoring full Social Security benefits.
For example, under the GPO, an individual with a $900 spousal benefit from Social Security and a $1,000 non-covered pension would have their Social Security benefit reduced by $667, or two-thirds of the non-covered pension amount. This leaves them with a $233 spousal benefit.
If the GPO measure is repealed, the same individual will be entitled to the full $900 spousal benefit amount, with no offset reduction.
Does the bill have bipartisan support?
Yes, the bill was introduced by Republican Rep. Garrett Graves of Louisiana and Democrat Rep. Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, and it has received support in the House. A strong 300 lawmakers, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, have signed on to it.
The bill has also received support from other groups, including the National Association of Counties, which represents county governments. That group claims that eliminating the GPO would assist county governments in recruiting workers during a time when many are experiencing labor shortages.
What happened next to the bill?
This fall, the bill’s sponsors, Reps. Graves and Spanberger, used a rarely successful process known as a discharge petition to move the legislation forward.
They collected the required 218 signatures from House members to remove the bill from committee and bring it to the floor for a vote.
The move is frequently viewed as an affront to House leaders, particularly the speaker and majority leader, who set the floor schedule.
But Spanberger and Graves, who did not seek reelection, had little to lose. Furthermore, Johnson supported the bill before becoming speaker.
Did the House Freedom Caucus block the Social Security bill?
Two conservative House Freedom Caucus leaders intervened while the rest of Congress was away from Capitol Hill, mostly in their home states on Election Day.
Read Also :- Social Security and SSI benefit payments of about $1,924 and $697 before Black Friday
