What’s Next for the Social Security Fairness Act

As congress climbs to avoid a government shutdown, the Senate is also poised to consider another bill that would increase Social Security benefits for some public workers.

But the bill, the Social Security Fairness Actmay undergo changes if some senators’ efforts to add changes succeed.

Under the original proposal, the Social Security Fairness Act calls for eliminating Social Security provisions known as the Windfall Elimination Provision, or WEP, and the Government Pension Offset, or GPO, that have been in place for decades.

WEP reduces Social Security benefits for people who receive retirement or disability benefits from employment where they did not pay Social Security taxes. The GPO reduces Social Security benefits for spouses, widows and widowers who also receive their own public pension income. Together, the provisions affect an estimated 3 million individuals.

The bill has enthusiastic support from organizations representing teachers, firefighters, police and other state employees affected by the benefit cuts.

“You shouldn’t penalize people for income outside of a system when you’ve paid into it and earned that benefit,” said John Hatton, vice president of policy and programs at the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association. “It’s been 40 years of trying to get this repealed.”

The bill has received overwhelming bipartisan support. The Social Security Fairness Act was passed by the House with one 327 majority in November.

Preliminary votes in the Senate this week have also shown strong bipartisan support for moving the proposal forward. On Wednesday, the chamber voted by a majority of 73 for a cloture for the motion to proceed. That was followed by a Thursday vote on a motion to continue that also drew a 73-vote majority.

Experts say the Senate could hold a final vote soon. It could proceed in one of two ways – with amendments that change the terms of the original bill or with a final vote without changes.

The Social Security Fairness Act would cost a an estimated $196 billion over 10 years, according to the Congressional Budget Office.

Those extra costs come as the trust funds Social Security relies on to help pay benefits already face looming expiration dates. Social security trustees have projected the program’s trust fund, which is used to pay retirement benefits, may be depleted in nine years, when only 79% of benefits can be paid.

Some senators who oppose the Social Security Fairness Act have expressed concern about the pressure the additional costs would put on the program.

Late. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, who this week voted against moving the current version of the bill forward in the Senate, said this week he plans to propose an amendment to offset those costs by gradually raising the retirement age to 70 while adjusting for life expectancy. Social Security’s full retirement age — when recipients receive 100% of the benefits they’ve earned — is currently 67 for people born in 1960 or later.

“It is absurd to entertain a proposal that would make Social Security both less fair and financially weaker,” Paul said in a statement. “To reverse the damage caused by this legislation, my amendment to gradually raise the retirement age to reflect current life expectancies would strengthen Social Security by providing nearly $400 billion in savings.”

More from Private Finance:
Answers to common questions about the Social Security Fairness Act
73% of workers worry that Social Security will not be able to pay benefits
Early retirement is a surprise for many workers, study shows

As of Friday morning, a total of six amendments to the bill had been introduced, according to Emerson Sprick, associate director for economic policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center.

Some amendments call for replacing the full repeal of the WEP and GPO provisions with other amendments.

An amendment from Sens. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Joe Manchin, I-West Virginia, would instead introduce a more proportional formula to calculate benefits for affected individuals. The change, inspired by Texas Republican Rep. Jodey Arrington’s Act on equal treatment of public servantshas a lot of support from political pundits and the Bipartisan Policy Center, Sprick said.

Social Security advocacy groups have pushed for a major comprehensive reform of Social Security that would use tax increases to pay for making benefits more generous.

“We want to help make this happen, but our preference was for it to be part of a much larger Social Security reform,” said Dan Adcock, director of government relations and policy at the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare.

It is certain that if amendments are added to the bill it will have to go back to Parliament.

“We’re hoping it doesn’t come to that, because that could complicate things, depending on the timing of what happens with the (continuation decision)” to avoid a government shutdown, Adcock said.