While many Republicans have called for protecting or even expanding the benefits of the Social Security, Republican lawmakers killed a bill that would help handfuls of Americans get higher monthly payments. Experts expressed their thoughts on the possible motives behind the move.
A bill of Social Security that would have repealed two rules that decrease benefits for some retirees was introduced by House Representatives Garret Graves (R-LA) and Abigail Spanberger (D-VA). Even though the bill previously had broad bipartisan support and Graves and Spanberger secured the 218 signatures needed to bring the bill to the House floor, the Freedom Caucus blocked the bill from passing.
Controversy in Congress: Social Security Bill is on hold after the breach of protocol
Freedom Caucus Chairman Andy Harris (R-Md.) won unanimous consent to introduce the bill. Social Security. However, this action broke the protocol that was already established, which has caused the bill to be inactive for the moment. For it to be approved, legislators would have to cast the vote, following the current discharge approval rules.
An alternative would be to present a new bill with similar guidelines for beneficiaries of the Social Security affected by the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO). These provisions minimize the benefits of the Social Security depending on the amount of the pension recipient, especially affecting those who receive pensions from jobs not covered by the Social Security.
Controversy over the Social Security Bill: A political maneuver to delay changes until 2025?
If the law had been implemented, it would have cost $196 billion over 10 years, at a time when the Social Security Administration already faces financing problems, which could reduce the benefits in 2035. Kevin Thompson, a financial expert and CEO of 9i Capital Group, noted that Republicans could have blocked the project to delay any changes until they obtained a majority in the House or Senate, suggesting a strategic maneuver.
Many beneficiaries of the Social Security are affected by the WEP and the GPO, which take thousands of dollars from their benefits annual. These cuts mainly affect retired public sector workers, such as police officers, teachers, and nurses. Thompson clarified that the GPO and WEP do not reduce benefits of those who are fully entitled to them, but rather prevent beneficiaries from receiving benefits simultaneously from the Social Security and pensions if they have not contributed to both systems.
Alex Beene, a financial education instructor at the University of Tennessee at Martin, said, “It’s not clear whether the bill was put on the table because lawmakers were against the idea or wanted to introduce a new bill.” law in place in the future.”
“The bill in question expanded Social Security benefits to a small group that had been excluded in the past due to provisions that combined those benefits with additional pensions for workers in certain fields,” Beene said. “The proposal was popular and garnered bipartisan support, which makes not addressing it at this time even more disconcerting. The hope is that the decision to shelve it for now will result in it being offered in another form in the future. The benefits that the beneficiaries would obtain would help them enormously in the times of economic inflation in which we currently find ourselves.”
