Senate advances bill to restore Social Security benefits for government workers

Legislation to restore full Social Security benefits for an estimated 2.1 million federal, state and local government workers and their spouses survived a key Senate test vote on Wednesday.

The 73-27 vote to end debate on the Social Security Fairness Act cleared a filibuster from some Republicans concerned the bill’s nearly $200 billion cost over 10 years would speed up the projected 2035 insolvency date for the Social Security trust fund by six months.

Proponents of the measure argued that one-time police officers, firefighters, teachers and other public workers deserve the full Social Security benefits they earned from other private sector jobs. 

“They had to pay into it and they can’t receive it. There’s nothing right about that,” said Sen. Markwayne Mullin, Oklahoma Republican. “That is just absolute highway robbery.”

A vote on the final passage will be later this week.

The House passed the bill last month with significant bipartisan support, 327-75, after supporters successfully used a discharge petition to force GOP leaders to bring the bill to the floor.

The bill repeals two Social Security provisions: the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduces benefits for workers who also have government pensions, and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which limits benefits their spouses can receive.

WEP and GPO — enacted in 1983 as part of a larger package to shore up the financing of the Social Security system — were designed to ensure that workers with public pensions and their spouses do not get an extra windfall of Social Security benefits from time in which they were not paying into it. 

But because of the way Social Security benefits are calculated, the provisions have caused lower-income public employees who at times also worked in the private sector and paid Social Security payroll taxes to face steep reductions in benefits. 

Sen. Sherrod Brown, Ohio Democrat and the bill’s lead sponsor, said he has heard thousands of horror stories from public workers robbed of Social Security benefits.

For example, A 70-year-old woman testified to Congress that she can’t work anymore after regularly driving a bus 200 miles a day.

“She’s making, I assume, no more than $1,500 a month at the most on her pension, and they’re taking some of her Social Security away,” Mr. Brown said.

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that eliminating the WEP would increase monthly benefits by an average of $360 for 2.1 million people, or 3% of all Social Security beneficiaries, by this time next year. Over the same period, repealing the GPO would increase monthly benefits for 380,000 spouses of living beneficiaries by an average of $700 and for 390,000 spouses of deceased beneficiaries by an average of $1,190.

The bill is backed by various outside groups supporting public workers, but one of the most influential in terms of lobbying Republican support is the Fraternal Order of Police. 

FOP National President Patrick Yoes and Executive Director Jim Pasco met with President-elect Donald Trump at Mar-a-Lago on Monday and brought up the issue.

“President-elect Trump expressed his commitment to help us pass this critical legislation, which will ensure public employees receive the benefits they have earned — just like every other American who paid into Social Security,” Mr. Yoes said.

His statement quoted Mr. Trump telling them: “You and your members have been good to me, and I am going to help you with this.”

Senate GOP leaders, like South Dakota Sen. John Thune, the Republican whip who will be majority leader next year, opposed the bill but did not urge other senators to vote against it.

Senate Finance Chairman Michael Crapo of Idaho said the $200 billion cost created heartburn for Republicans like himself because it will further deplete the Social Security trust fund “and all Social Security recipients could see a reduction in their benefits if we don’t fix that problem.”

The bill won support from Republicans who typically oppose legislation that adds to the deficit, like Sen. Mike Braun, who is leaving the Senate to serve as governor of Indiana.

“I’ve only gone against the fiscal kind of principle a couple times here,” Mr. Braun told The Washington Times, saying he only does so when the underlying issue is one of “inherent unfairness.”

While he would prefer the legislation have an offset, he said that wasn’t reason enough to vote no.

“Sometimes you’re in a pickle in here,” Mr. Braun said.