GovernmentExecutive.com

Several witnesses once again made the trek to Capitol Hill Tuesday to make the case that two provisions of Social Security law treat federal employees unfairly and should be repealed.

At a hearing before the Senate Finance Social Security, Pensions and Family Policy subcommittee, witnesses called attention to the impact of two provisions in Social Security law -- the Government Pension Offset and the Windfall Elimination Provision -- on the retirement incomes of many public employees.

"These two provisions have enormous financial implications for many of our teachers, police officers, firefighters and other public employees," said Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine. "Given their important responsibilities, it is simply unfair to penalize them when it comes to their Social Security benefits."

Both provisions 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.

The GPO is "most harsh for those who can least afford the loss -- lower-income women," Collins testified, adding that more than 70 percent of the 1 million employees affected by the offset are women. The offset reduces benefits for more than 200,000 individuals by more than $3,600 a year, she added.

Collins, along with Sen. Diane Feinstein, D-Calif., introduced a bill in January that would repeal the two provisions. Other bills introduced this year, including one sponsored by Sen. Barbara Mikulski, D-Md., would scale back the government pension offset to help lower-income retirees.

At a press conference Tuesday morning, subcommittee Chairman John Kerry, D-Mass., said the Collins-Feinstein repeal legislation likely will be marked up in committee in early 2008. But, he added, the true test will involve finding an overall solution to offsetting the bill's $81 billion price tag.

Collins noted that Congress may have to make incremental steps toward full repeal. "I don't underestimate the battle before us..." she said. "My goal is full repeal because of the inequity of these two provisions."

Still, Barbara Bovbjerg, director of education, workforce and income security at the Government Accountability Office, noted that a full repeal of the two provisions would distribute income from those who have invested in Social Security during their careers to those who have not, introducing new concerns.

Additionally, Bovbjerg noted, a majority of the fairness problems associated with the two provisions result from a lack of complete and accurate reporting of government pension income, much of which is not currently available. Such information was made available for federal retirees in 1999, Bovbjerg noted, when SSA obtained pension data electronically from the Office of Personnel Management and generated hundreds of millions in dollars in savings.

"However, SSA still lacks the information it needs for state and local governments, and therefore, it cannot apply the GPO and the WEP for state and local government employees to the same extent it can for federal employees," Bovbjerg said. "The resulting disparity is yet another source of unfairness in the calculation of Social Security benefits for public employees."

At Tuesday's press conference, Kerry pointed to stacks of petitions with more than 200,000 individuals voicing support for full repeal of the provisions. "Every one of these names represents a life that has been affected adversely by this situation," Kerry said. "Sometimes the best intentions go awry, and this is one of those situations where an effort to try to create a fair playing field has, in effect, created an unfair playing field. It's up to us to try to rectify it."

For more information about the Windfall Elimination Provision, go to http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html. For more information about the Government Pension Offset, go to http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/10007.html.

COMMENTS

• I started work in 1965 and am still working today. During those years I worked for the federal gov't. and yet worked on the side for other agencies paying into social sec. During the work years, I did not pay into social security for 21 years and did pay into social security for 22 years. I am being told that I cannot draw anything from social security because I am a gov't retiree. But yet, I had to pay into that gov't. system also. The company I work for now provides a free retirement system that pays better than my gov't. one, they offer free life insurance up to $50K and they match up to 4% for my IRA fund. In addition, I pay a lot into social security as well. If I had worked for this company all my life instead of the govenment, I would be eligible to draw social security. Can someone explain the fairness of your system. It is biased against govenment retirees who paid a lot into social security versus non-government retired people. This is taxation without benefit. Leonard Bynum Posted June 26, 2008 1:13 PM
• Many of you are belly-aching about "fixing" Social Security. The problem IS Social Security. It is a pay-as-you-go scheme where current workers pay for current retirees. The PROBLEMS with that are: 1. The elderly population will soon swell dramatically. 2. People are living longer. 3. Benefits have increased 4. NO PERSONAL OWNERSHIP: you do NOT have a social security "account." If you die at age 61, your heirs get NOTHING. If you die before being married 10 years, your spouse gets NOTHING. If we "fix" Social Security by increasing benefits, it runs dry faster. If we raise taxes, we screw current workers. If we raise, we screw people who have to wait longer. There is NO WAY TO FIX SOCIAL SECURITY. It is a flawed and failed system from day 1. We should not SAVE THE SYSTEM. We should PRESERVE THE PROMISE. The only way to do that is through immediate and complete PRIVATIZATION. Under privatization, your mandatory retirement contributions go into a fund which invests in a safe portfolio. Rates of return will be more than double SS. Moreoever, you and your heirs will OWN it. There will be no redistribution from young to old, worker to retiree, rich to poor, early dyers to long-livers. In other countries, privatization schemes allowed people to opt-out or stay in Social Security. 95% opt out! NO ONE currently receiving a SS check will lose it! Some say it will expose people's savings to risk. It already is at risk! Most people already have IRA's, 401(k)'s, which are exposed to the risk of the market. Those people don't worry too much. As you age, you move your portfolio toward safer investments. Democrats and the AARP are wedded to this flawed and failed system from the 1930's. They prey upon fear and ignorance. DON'T SAVE THE SYSTEM. PRESERVE THE PROMISE of a secure retirement. R. Miller Posted June 11, 2008 6:39 PM
• Some of the people that have responded obviously know nothing about the eligibility factors re: SSA (See Kim's remarks for example). We are not asking for anything we do not deserve. I for example became fully insured (40 QCs)before entering the Federal Service. I took an early out because of downsizing. I however,continued to work in the private sector. When I attained retirement age I was shocked to see that my neighbor who had worked less than I did was receiving more than me. Since I still work on projects in the private sector I suggest that we who will not benefit from paying into the SSA program should pay FICA at a reduced rate. I think this would only be fair. Double dipping as some of the no nothings have call dual entitlement are ignorant and do not know the meaning of the word. True double dipping is where an applicant becames entitled to two benefits, using the same entilement factor to obtain benefits.For example using military service to became entiled to Social Security and Veterans pensions using the same factors. Fabian Fragiao Posted May 25, 2008 4:20 AM