Opinion: Public sector and government employees getting the short end of the Social Security stick
It’s a safe bet that many of our police officers, firefighters, teachers, postal workers and more are unaware of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). Simply put, up to two-thirds of your Social Security earnings will be unavailable to you when you retire here in Maine and in 14 other states. In the case of the GPO, your spousal and survivor benefits may be affected, as well.
Those unaffected will assume you must be misinformed. “How can they just take your money?” “That’s outright theft!” “That can’t be true!” Sadly, it is true for 2.8 million public sector and government employees across the country and has been since the Reagan administration. Many find themselves working years longer than expected, or unable to retire with dignity, or even to retire at all.
There are “rationales” for the WEP and GPO, but they are nonsensical and utterly unfair. Collecting Social Security withholdings from a private sector job, and state retirement withholdings from a different public sector or government job is certainly NOT “double dipping,” as the very few repeal opponents would have us think. Your earnings have been divided into two separate baskets, all of which should be available to you – as in any private sector job.
Most of us understand that if billionaires were paying their fair share of taxes (although “fair” is a bit more affordable for billionaires) we would never have to speak of Social Security becoming insolvent. Yet, another misleading rationale for blocking the repeal of these unfair provisions is the claim it would shorten the time frame within which Social Security could become insolvent by an additional year. Not to begrudge those who have been rightfully collecting for decades, but those of us robbed of our earned benefits for 40 years have been saving the system money. Rightful benefits are long overdue.
While a “compromise” bill has been put forth by some in the past, it would have allowed for a mere additional $100 per month to those affected. Adding insult to injury, this token gesture would probably herald the end of any further efforts for a full repeal.
But there’s some potentially good news that your voice could play an important role in. This September, U.S. Reps. Garret Graves, R-LA, and Abigail Spanberger, D-VA, were able to acquire enough bipartisan signatures in the House to issue a rare dispatch filing, forcing a vote on the House floor sometime in either November or December for HR 82, the Social Security Fairness Act. Of course, it then goes on to the Senate. It is considered a popular bill, but as has happened in the past, if it is not made a priority, time may run out for a vote there. Now is the time to let our representatives and senators know how much we value our public sector and government employees and end these blatantly unfair provisions and offsets.
Should the Social Security Fairness Act fail to pass, it may be time for a new bill. Public sector and government employers should be legally required to inform potential hires explicitly, both verbally and in print, that they would lose two-thirds of any Social Security benefits at the time of retirement. If even that fails to pass, the politicians or lawmakers who voted against it should be named publicly. Constituents deserve to know whether their representatives supported or opposed transparency around this significant risk to their financial futures.
Copy the Story Link