TOPICS
TOPICS
Off With the Offsets
The long-standing campaign to repeal two old laws that cut Social Security benefits for federal retirees began anew this week.
Reps. Howard Berman, D-Calif., Lloyd Doggett, D-Texas, and Buck McKeon, R-Calif., revived the fight with a press conference on Capitol Hill Tuesday, bemoaning the 1977 Government Pension Offset and the 1983 Windfall Elimination Provision laws and unveiling a new bill to rescind them.
Both affect federal employees who entered the government before 1984 and are covered by the Civil Service Retirement System. Employees in CSRS do not pay into Social Security, receiving a government pension instead.
The Government Pension Offset law cuts Social Security benefits that some employees, including widows or widowers, would have received from their spouses. The Windfall Elimination Provision reduces Social Security benefits for public employees who also worked in private sector jobs where they paid into the Social Security system.
Veteran federal employees and their counterparts in state and local government loathe the laws. For years, groups that represent these workers have pushed Congress to repeal them. In the last Congress, 327 lawmakers co-sponsored a House bill to do so, but it never came to a vote.
This time around, the Democrats are in charge, and the newly introduced bill already has 182 co-sponsors. Berman and crew on Tuesday gave a valiant description of the injustices the laws impose, showcasing teachers, police officers and union folks who are hurting due to their effects.
Margaret Baptiste, president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, spoke for the federal sector.
"The Social Security offsets deny many of our older members, particularly women, the dignified retirement they expected," she said.
NARFE's numbers show that as of December 2003, about 400,000 people were affected by the offset and 635,000 by the windfall elimination. Those large numbers include nonfederal public workers, and mean that federal employees enjoy the support of powerful lobby groups like the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees and the National Education Association.
Repealing the bills would be expensive. In 2003, then-Social Security Commissioner Jo Anne Barnhart testified that abandoning the two laws would cost $62.2 billion over the next 10 years. The lean budget year combined with the Democrats' new pay-as-you-go rules will likely prove lethal to the effort.
So, despite newly empowered Democrats and a coalition with oomph, the lawmakers -- unprompted -- practically acknowledged defeat before the new round of fighting began.
"It will continue to face a very uphill battle," Doggett said.
"It's a tough budgetary issue," McKeon said.
"Difficult fights take a long period of time," Berman said.
So for now, the laws remain, as do their accompanying cries of indignation.
COMMENTS
- Worked all those years and earned a police fire retirement which I paid into plus 30 + working. In addition I also earned social security but was short 2 substantial earnings years so when I retrired and went for SS I was reduced by 450 a month due to Off set and windfall. yet illegals come here and get 750 a month and the city helps them fill oout the paperwork and they have put nothing into the system...UNFAIR... Lastly the Politicians don't care they have their own retirement..full salary after 4 years ..why don't we all put them on Social Security and give them Windfall and Offset like the rest of us....HYPOCRITS .. throw the bums OUT... Bill Posted June 26, 2009 11:02 PM
- It seems that we who have fallen under the "winfall" act should be able to get our benefits back. If our government can give Social Security and Drivers license to the illegals, who have never worked for it, why can't we get what is rightfully ours? What we worked 20 to 30 years to get. Thanks Helen Williams Posted June 8, 2009 10:48 AM
- I have paid social security for 35 years, 28 of those years are called substantial and count as credit toward social security. When I retired from Texas Teacher Retirement, I had heard about the offset law and talked with people from Texas Teacher Retirement System about my wife woring her last day at a school district that paid social security. I was told that that possibility did not exist. We retired without that last day and the next year colleagues of my wife worked their last day in a district that paid social security. They are now drawing half of their spouses social security benefits. My wife worked for 39 quarters and can only draw less than 3 percent. Somehow this doesn't seem fair. J. Floyd Worley Posted September 5, 2007 2:44 PM










