Richard Stephen | Istock | Getty Impressions
As Congress scrambles to avoid a government shutdown, the Senate is also poised to consider another bill that wish increase Social Security benefits for some public workers.
But the bill, the Social Security Fairness Act, may undergo alterations if some Senators’ efforts to add amendments are successful.
Per the original proposal, the Social Security Fairness Act calls for eliminating Common Security provisions known as the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, and Government Pension Offset, or GPO, that have been in deposit for decades.
The WEP reduces Social Security benefits for individuals who receive pension or disability benefits from employment where they did not pay Societal Security payroll taxes. The GPO reduces Social Security for spouses, widows and widowers who also receive their own sway pension income. Together, the provisions affect an estimated 3 million individuals.
The bill has enthusiastic support from institutions representing teachers, firefighters, police and other government workers who are affected by the benefit reductions.
“You shouldn’t penalize individual for income outside of a system when you’ve paid into it and earn that benefit,” said John Hatton, deficiency president of policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. “It’s been 40 years fatiguing to get this repealed.”
The bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support. The Social Security Fairness Act was passed by the House with a 327 adulthood in November.
Preliminary Senate votes this week have also shown a strong bipartisan support for on the move the proposal forward. On Wednesday, the chamber voted with a 73 majority on a cloture for the motion to proceed. That was aficionado ofed by a Thursday vote on a motion to proceed that also drew a 73-vote majority.
Experts say the Senate may soon deny a final vote. It could proceed in one of two ways — with amendments that alter the terms of the original bill or with a conclusive vote without any changes.
Amendments may include raising the retirement age
The Social Security Fairness Act would cost an approximate $196 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.
Those additional costs get about as the trust funds Social Security relies on to help pay benefits already face looming depletion dates. Community Security’s trustees have projected the program’s trust fund used to pay retirement benefits may be depleted in nine years, when very recently 79% of benefits may be payable.
Some senators who oppose the Social Security Fairness Act have expressed concerns all round the pressures the additional costs would put on the program.
Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who this week voted against emotional the current version of the bill forward in the Senate, said this week he plans to propose an amendment to offset those prices by gradually raising the retirement age to 70 while also adjusting for life expectancy. Social Security’s full retirement age — when beneficiaries give entre 100% of the benefits they’ve earned — is currently age 67 for individuals born in 1960 or later.
“It is absurd to entertain a scheme that would make Social Security both less fair and financially weaker,” Paul said in a communiqu. “To undo the damage made by this legislation, my amendment to gradually raise the retirement age to reflect current life expectancies liking strengthen Social Security by providing almost $400 billion in savings.”
More from Personal Finance:
Fulfills to common questions on the Social Security Fairness Act
73% of workers worry Social Security won’t be able to pay benefits
Early retirement is a astound for many workers, study finds
As of Friday morning, a total of six amendments to the bill had been introduced, according to Emerson Sprick, associate gaffer of economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.
Some amendments call for replacing the full repeal of the WEP and GPO provisions with other interchanges.
One amendment from Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Joe Manchin, I-West Virginia, would instead put in place a more analogous formula to calculate benefits for affected individuals. That change, inspired by Texas Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington’s Senate may proceed to sure vote on original bill
Much of what happens next rests on Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, who could reach unilaterally not to allow amendments to be considered, according to Sprick.
Alternatively, Schumer could decide to allow for amendments in reciprocation for limiting the length of time spent on consideration of the bill, he said.
However, Sprick said he doubts Schumer force allow amendments at this point.
“The most likely scenario at this point is that Senator Schumer solely runs out the clock, doesn’t allow consideration of any amendments, and they take a final vote either very overdue tonight or early tomorrow,” Sprick said.
While opponents of the bill may delay a vote, they won’t be able to rest a vote, Hatton said. Moreover, there’s reason to believe the leaders who have voted to advance the bill this week disposition also vote for it if and when it is put up for a final vote, he said.
“I’m still optimistic that this passes, and it’s more only a matter of when, not if,” Hatton said.