What the New Bill Means for Social Security and Your Future Benefits

On Wednesday a proposal to increase Social Security benefits for people who are eligible for non-Social Security government pensions will be put up for a vote in the Senate. After passing the House of Representatives with ease, aided by its bipartisan support, the Social Security Fairness Act will now go up for its final vote before being signed into law.

Despite its bipartisan approval, even amongst Senators, the Republican party seems quite divided in its opinions, many pushing back when taking into consideration the price tag of the bill.

One anonymous Senator privy to the close doors discussions stated that “I think most of our members were alarmed that something so big would come straight to the Senate floor” as it had not been marked up by the Senate Finance Committee.

The opinions of the Senators opposed to the Social Security Fairness Act

The lack of support comes hand in hand with other unpopular proposals such as gradually raising the retirement age even more to offset costs, as A group of Senate conservatives led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) are demanding.

As Paul explained to the Hill “It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money. If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it. One of the proposals that’s been out there for a long time is to gradually raise the age of eligibility. I’ll propose that as an amendment. … If we raise the age [of retirement] gradually, about three months a year for the next 12 years, the age will go to 70 and then be linked to longevity. That would pay for this expansion. I won’t vote to support expanding [Social Security benefits] without paying for it. There are several other people opposed to this bill, too. So it may be that the others simply just want to delay it as long as possible in hopes that they will not be able to complete it this week,” he said.

See also  Extra Child Tax Credit: See Which States Are Offering It and How to Qualify

Surprisingly many Republican legislators, now including President Elect Trump are reluctant to touch retirement age, as their main demographic is seniors, But if Senator Paul wishes to drag out the discussion the bill might not get passed and might also delay the Senate’s consideration of a stopgap funding bill that needs to pass by the end of the day Friday to avoid a government shutdown.

Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) weighed on the issue with less strength, noting the intense divide withing the party “There was a lot of conversation around [it] today. I think in the end, it’s going to come down to individual members are going to make their own decisions. Obviously, I’m concerned about the long-term solvency of Social Security, and that’s an issue that I think we need to address,” he added.

But not everyone is as tempered, even though the bill would only accelerate the Social Security shortfall by six months (according to the Congressional Budget Office) and that more reform is ne4ceded for the overall survival of the program, Senators like Mike Lee (R-Utah), a prominent conservative have vehemently held on to funding as the major issue “It’s got to be offset one way or another. We have never in history, to my knowledge, unleashed such a massive bomb that would blow such a massive hole in the Social Security trust fund — $200 billion,” he said. I understand the need to address some inequities that have arisen in this area. I don’t think there’s any member of our conference who doesn’t think that we need to do some repair, but I think we’re kidding ourselves and mistreating the American people if we blow a $200 billion hole in it and give no thought as how to fix that,” Lee said.

See also  Can You Work Full-Time and Still Receive Social Security Benefits? Here’s Everything You Need to Know to Avoid Reductions

Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is one of its staunch opponents “Hopefully it gets defeated. I think a lot of people who co-sponsored it … [did so] because there are people in their state who are impacted by it. Their assumption always was that it was going to be paid for. It’s way too broad. It provides benefits to people who aren’t harmed by the fix from the 1970s,” he said, referring to the Government Pension Act. “I would view it as grotesquely irresponsible.”

The Republican co-sponsors include Sens. Mike Braun (Ind.), Deb Fischer (Neb.), Pete Ricketts (Neb.), Marsha Blackburn (Tenn.), Lisa Murkowski (Alaska), Markwayne Mullin (Okla.), John Boozman (Ark.), Rick Scott (Fla.), Jerry Moran (Kan.) and John Kennedy (La.) and Vice President-elect JD Vance.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.