Social Security Fairness Act May Increase Millions' Benefits

With just a few weeks left in this session of Congress, senators are calling for leadership to advance a bipartisan Social Security bill that would expand benefits for public-sector workers and their families.

Older Americans who receive public pensions — think: teachers, police officers and government employees — typically receive reduced Social Security benefits, if any. And while public pensions do not disqualify someone from receiving Social Security, certain provisions in the law can significantly lower benefits.

In general, workers become eligible for Social Security after working and paying payroll taxes for about 10 years in qualifying jobs. While lots of public-sector workers don't pay into Social Security long enough to be eligible, there are others who work second jobs or have second careers in the private sector and do qualify for benefits.

The Social Security Fairness Act would revoke two provisions — the Windfall Elimination Provision and the Government Pension Offset — to increase Social Security benefits for these public-sector workers who paid into the program.

Ads by Money. We may be compensated if you click this ad.Ad

Eliminating the primary windfall provision would benefit roughly 2 million people whose benefits are reduced because they receive government pensions, and another 800,000 would be helped by the elimination of the other provision, which affects the benefits of surviving spouses who receive pensions, according to sponsors of the legislation.

Lawmakers call for a vote to expand Social Security benefits

Members of Congress supporting the Social Security Fairness Act, which the House passed last week with a 327-75 vote tally, say it would improve the Social Security system by ensuring that public-sector workers get the benefits they deserve. The changes would be effective for benefits payable after December 2023, according to a summary of the House bill.

The act has also gained strong support in the Senate, with more than 60 senators cosponsoring it. Still, the bill's fate is uncertain.

Advocates want to get the act passed during this lame-duck session of Congress, in part because they feel confident President Joe Biden would sign it. They can't say the same for President-elect Donald Trump.

Shannon Benton, executive director of The Senior Citizens League, says her organization has been pushing to eliminate these provisions for decades.

"A lot of people are surprised: They don't realize that if they worked at a job where they did pay into Social Security, but then had a job where they didn't, that they would be penalized," Benton says. "It's especially hard on spouses."

The act would cost $196 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office, and it would bump up Social Security’s looming insolvency by about six months, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, which opposes the act.

"They should call this bill the Social Security UnFairness Act; it creates a Windfall Expansion Provision for a small number of beneficiaries who would get to double-dip their retirement benefits," Maya MacGuineas, the committee's president, said in a statement.

Some deficit hawks in Congress oppose the act for similar reasons. Proponents say the cost needs to be addressed another way.

"For more than 40 years, the Social Security trust funds have been artificially propped up by stolen benefits that millions of Americans paid for and that their families deserve," Rep. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Rep. Garret Graves, R-La., said in a statement after the act passed the House. "The long-term solvency of Social Security is an issue that Congress must address — but an issue that is wholly separate from allowing Virginians, Louisianans and Americans across our country who did their part and contributed their earnings to retire with dignity.”

Other groups, including the National Association of Police Organizations, have downplayed the cost.

"Congress cannot continue to harm the financial security of millions of our nation’s public servants for the next 10 years just to give the [Social Security] Trust Fund six additional months of solvency," the association said in a recent statement.

Benton says this is a rare case where a large number of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have shown they can actually come together.

"I felt like it gave people hope, when it passed in the House, that a bipartisan bill could gain traction," Benton says. "So for the Senate to not do it, it's kind of cowardly."

Will the Social Security Fairness Act become law?

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, said in a release that they urge Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer to put the act up for a vote as soon as possible.

However, passage of the act is far from certain due to complicated year-end politicking. Congress is out of town the week of Thanksgiving and then again starting the week of Christmas. That leaves just three weeks to get the Social Security Fairness Act — or anything — passed.

In the limited time left in this session, Democratic leadership in the Senate is focused on confirming Biden's judicial nominees, and it's seen as unlikely that the Social Security Fairness Act would get a vote as a stand-alone bill, a source close to the legislative process tells Money.

But there's still hope it could get passed another way: Advocates and members of Congress envision the act being linked to a larger legislative package, either a government spending bill that Congress will need to pass to avoid a shutdown or a defense authorization bill, the source says.

"There's only going to be one, maybe two more major bills that are going to go through the Senate between now and the time that they adjourn," the source adds. "Their best shot of getting this through is to get the leadership on both sides, in both bodies — House and Senate — to agree to have it attached to a must-pass bill."

The challenge: Republican leadership in the House previously resisted calls for a vote on the act, and members ultimately had to force a vote. So while the Social Security Fairness Act could be included in a compromise spending bill, that opposition from the GOP leadership may re-emerge as an obstacle.

If the Social Security Fairness Act does not pass in this Congress, lawmakers would have to start the legislative process over next year. Trump takes office Jan. 20.

Schumer's office did not respond to Money's request for comment on the path forward for the Social Security Fairness Act.

Ads by Money. We may be compensated if you click this ad.Ad