Senate’s political will to tackle troublesome Social Security finances is put to the test

A series of Senate votes last week on changes to Social Security shows how difficult it will be for Congress to address the program’s financial problems.

The Senate rejected three amendments designed to pay for all or part of the roughly $200 billion cost of a bill to restore full Social Security benefits for an estimated 2.1 million government workers and retirees. The bill passed on a 76-20 vote.

The legislation is projected to speed up the 2035 insolvency date for the Social Security trust funds by half a year, which Republican senators offering the amendments said they want to avoid since everyone’s benefits will be cut if the program goes bankrupt.

“In 2033 or 2034, everybody gets a 20% cut,” said Sen. Rand Paul, Kentucky Republican. “And people who live on $700 a month, going to $550 or $540, that’s a big drop for those people. And nobody here cares. All they care about is does it feel good. Let’s give people stuff. Let’s borrow more money.”

Mr. Paul offered an amendment to fully offset the cost of the bill. He said his proposal would gradually raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits by three months a year for the next 12 years.

“It’ll be the first amendment, I think, in 15 or 20 years, that talks about reforming Social Security,” he told reporters ahead of the vote.

If the proposal was a test of lawmakers’ appetite to tackle Social Security reforms, it overwhelmingly failed.

Mr. Paul was one of only three senators to support the amendment, along with Republican Sens. Mike Lee of Utah and Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming.

After Mr. Paul’s amendment failed 3-93, Senate Majority Leader Charles E. Schumer, New York Democrat, quipped that it “came close.”

The underlying bill repeals the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), which reduces Social Security benefits for workers who also have government pensions, and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), which deducts pension earnings from Social Security spousal benefits.

Sen. Ted Cruz, Texas Republican, offered a substitute amendment that, instead of repealing WEP, would change the formula for determining benefits under the provision to one that adjusts earnings based on the proportion subject to Social Security payroll taxes.

Mr. Cruz said the current WEP formula treats retired government workers like police officers, firefighters and teachers unfairly. He said his proposal “fixes the inequity of the windfall elimination provision but does so at a cost of only $25 billion instead of $200 billion.”

While Mr. Cruz’s idea drew far more support than Mr. Paul’s, it still failed 32-64.

Last up in offering an amendment was Sen. Michael Crapo, who is poised to become Finance Committee chairman next month. The Idaho Republican’s proposal would have delayed the repeal of WEP and GPO until Congress later made changes to offset its impact on the Social Security trust funds.

It also failed, 34-62.

Democrats who urged senators to vote against the amendments mostly argued that the chamber did not have time to amend the bill because it was the last in a series of votes to end the current Congress. The House had already departed for the holidays, and had the Senate amended it and sent it back, there would not have been an opportunity for the House to reconsider it.

Senate Finance Chairman Ron Wyden, Oregon Democrat, said voting for the amendments “is in effect a vote to kill the bill.”

Still, it is unlikely that the outcome of the amendment votes would have been different had the Senate had time to send the bill back to the House.

And even if the changes had been adopted, those Social Security reforms were small compared to what will be needed to stop the trust fund from going bankrupt.

Mr. Paul said he first introduced his proposal to gradually raise the retirement age for Social Security benefits in 2011, and its potential impact has diminished over time as the financial burdens on Social Security have increased with more retirees.

“It would have fixed two-thirds of the shortfall in Social Security in 2011. Now it buys you one year,” he said. “Us doing nothing, sticking our head in the sand, we’ve gotten so far behind that if we do it now … you still have this enormous problem.”