Connect with us

Latest Posts

Ways and Means leaders working on lame-duck Social Security fix

Published

on

ADVERTISEMENT

Key lawmakers are looking to a potential year-end tax package as the best opportunity to introduce a reform of a Social Security provision that many on Capitol Hill believe unfairly cuts benefits for public employees who also have state pensions.

The issue was brought to light after bipartisan proponents of legislation to permanently increase Social Security payments by hundreds of dollars a month to nearly 3 million people on the verge of forcing them to pay their bill to the House of Representatives using a special procedural tool.

But leaders of the House Ways and Means Committee who had been working on a less expansive compromise plan, one they believed had a better chance of becoming law, halted procedural maneuvering by putting the bill instead on September 20.

Top House tax clerks believe they are close to reaching agreement on addressing the “snap out clause,” which reduces Social Security payments to individuals who qualify for pensions from their work as teachers, police officers, government employees and other public sector jobs and for Social Security benefits. from separate work.

“I am convinced that the best chance to cancel [windfall elimination provision] Restoring fairness to these public servants is the business this year and focus on providing winding down windfalls,” said House Ways and Means member Representative Kevin Brady, who retired after this Congress.

The Texas Republican said most of the work is being done on getting to a bipartisan reform, which could then become part of a year-end tax package that will ride on a comprehensive spending package or other legislative vehicle after the November midterm elections.

Dylan Peachey, a spokesperson for Ways and Means President Richard E. Neal, D-Mass., confirmed that he is working with Brady to overturn a surprise disqualification provision that could carry over in the year-end package.

Neil Brady’s proposal to eliminate the gains exclusion clause is likely to avoid significantly speeding up the schedule when Social Security is expected to become insolvent, and to address concerns that seniors who have not paid much into Social Security during their careers may receive unfairly high payments.

Repealing the windfall-gain clause would boost benefits to about 2 million individuals and cost about $88 billion during fiscal year 2032, according to the Congressional Budget Office. The Central Bank of Oman said monthly benefits will increase by an average of $330 starting in December 2023, with monthly payments increasing for a shrinking number of beneficiaries over time.

The second clause limiting Social Security payments to beneficiaries’ spouses, or heirs, who have their own state pensions, would cost nearly $107 billion to abolish it.

The CBO said that if the “government pension” were to be abolished, benefits would increase by an average of $670 per month for 410,000 spouses and $1,150 per month for 370,000 spouses in December 2023. Average payments will rise steadily over time, with the number rising Beneficiaries initially before the decline.

Brady said lawmakers are closer to a bipartisan agreement on the payoff clause, which is cheaper to fix and affects more people. He said the form they agreed to address this provision could later be used to address the state pension.

Ron Wyden, the Senate’s chief financial officer, said he would need to discuss with the committee’s top Republican nominee, Idaho Senator Michael de Crabo, about the prospects for including a surprise repeal provision reform in the tax bill by the end of the year, but the action is justified.

“This should have been fixed a long time ago,” Wyden said.

Senate Banking Chairman Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, led efforts to overturn the provisions. Brown said he and his fellow Democrats have bigger priorities heading toward negotiations on an end-of-year tax bill, specifically expanding the child tax credit.

Brown said fixing the wind-down clause “is important to a lot of us, but if there are huge fights, I don’t know.”

Alternative method

Neil and Brady billed the current earnings cancellation clause in favor of what’s known as the proportional formula, which calculates benefits based on all a worker’s past earnings — in jobs covered by Social Security or other pensions.

This means that future retirees will receive Social Security benefits equal to their share of earnings from “covered” work. If half of the earnings came from jobs not covered by Social Security, they would receive benefits equal to 50 percent of what they would receive if all their earnings were from jobs covered by Social Security.

Neil and Brady both include “protection” provisions that would allow future beneficiaries to receive higher than they would receive under existing law or their legislation – although the Brady bill would eventually move to only comparative advantages.

Advertisements

For current retirees, both bills will supplement existing benefits for those who dock under the sudden retirement provision. Bill will save Neil up to an additional $150 per month per worker, while Brady will add up to $100 per month per worker plus up to $50 per dependent.

The Social Security Administration estimated that both issues would cost less than $30 billion over a decade, although the CBO has yet to take its weight.

Pay to cancel

Even as House tax writers believe they are on the verge of a solution, they still face an effort to force action on a widely backed bill to eliminate both the abolition-gains clause and state pension offset without alternatives or offsets.

Backers of the bipartisan legislation introduced by Representative Rodney Davis, R-Illinois, crossed the co-sponsor’s threshold of 290 in July to get the measure on the “consensus calendar,” a tool for bringing popular bills to the floor laid out in House rules beginning with the 116th Congress. As of Friday, the bill had 301 co-sponsors.

But the characterization of ways and means on Tuesday, in which the bill was reported by “no-recommendation” voice vote, precluded that possibility. It also eliminated the use of the procedure’s traditional discharge petition, which requires the signature of a majority of House members in order to introduce a bill that was not taken up in committee.

Instead, after tabulating road and means signs, three GOP supporters—Davis, Garrett Graves of Louisiana, and Julia Littlelow of Louisiana—on September 19 passed a law to repeal their legislation.

Starting next week, assuming the Rules Committee does not address it, the Rule becomes eligible to file a Discharge Petition for submission to the Chamber, which when adopted will result in a vote on the Basic Law.

They will need the support of a majority of House members to succeed, and with Democrats making up two-thirds of the bill’s backers, it’s not clear there will be enough support to directly challenge the leadership through a dismissal petition.

At a news conference Thursday, Davis said he didn’t know if any Democrats would join the effort.

Connor Joseph, a spokesman for Virginia Representative Abigail Spanberger, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Spanberger is the main Democratic sponsor of the Davis bill and has lobbied for it to be brought to the House in recent weeks.

The winding-down clause affects most residents in some of the largest states, including California, Texas, Florida and Illinois, according to data from the National Association of Active and Retired Federal Employees, which represents current and retired federal workers.

In some states—including Brown’s native Ohio, Neil-populated Massachusetts, and Graves-and-Litlow-inhabited Louisiana—this ruling affects more than 1 percent of the population.

At a press conference, Davis criticized Ways and Means for taking on the bill. “This is a delay tactic, nothing more,” he said.

He added that fears of the deterioration of the financial situation of Social Security should not be a reason to hold back the attempt to correct the injustice that deprives public officials of their full benefits.

Ways and Means could have tried to amend the bill to address the cost issue “but they chose not to do so,” Davis said.

Brady said he believes the “Ways and Means” study continues to advance the case by demonstrating clear bipartisan support for addressing the pay-off clause in state pensions.

Brady said the coding “was incredibly helpful because it raised a problem that many of us have been working on for decades.”

The “Means and Ways” post working on Social Security reform first appeared on Roll Call.

ADVERTISEMENT

Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

Trending

Advertisements

Copyright © 2022 strongbat.com. Theme by The Nitesh Arya.