Home

Blog

How People Voted

77% For, 23% Against

Take Action

Alert Your Friends and Colleagues
Write Your Representative in Congress
Save & Share
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Google
Reddit
Yahoo!

H.R. 82, The Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 (334 comments ↓ | 5 wiki edits: view article ↓)

  • This item is from the 110th Congress (2007-2008) and is no longer current. Comments, voting, and wiki editing have been disabled, and the cost/savings estimate has been frozen.

H.R. 82 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions. Related to S. 206.

(read more ↓)
[161 views]


Visitor Comments Comments Feed for This Bill

Mary

May 23, 2007, 11:14pm (report abuse)

I retired from teaching after 28 years and worked part time and paid in S.S. 30 years (12 of these years were from a school system in another state). Someone needs to tell me what is fair about reducing my S.S. when I paid in for 30 years. Is this the way public servants are rewarded?

Richard & Karen

May 24, 2007, 12:29pm (report abuse)

If you're just complaining and not paying attention to what James III and ourselves are doing you are absolutely wasting your time. Put your energy to good use and MAKE THOSE CONTACTS!

John C

May 25, 2007, 8:42pm (report abuse)

I was a police officer for 27 years. During that time, due to low pay, I worked many off duty jobs. Social Security taxes were deducted from those wages. Now I can only get a small percentage of the benefits I earned. What do our legislators have against public service?

Peg

May 28, 2007, 10:49am (report abuse)

Under the windfall elimination provision, I've lost $30,000.00 in the 12 years i've been retired. this is an outrage!! that would have many times paid off the social security that wasn't taken out and left me with several thousands top help me in my old age.

Opposed to HR 82

May 29, 2007, 3:43pm (report abuse)

Point 1) Social Security, as it now stands, will become insolvent.
Point 2) To Pass this bill as it stands would worsen SS's insolvency problems and is unfair to workers and their spouses who have always paid into Social Security.
Point 3) Those whose benefits are being reduced are having them reduced because they didn't pay into Social Security for some period of time while they were employed. So they are trying have their cake (not pay into social security for some period of employment) and eat it too (collecting full SS benefits) while reducing the size of the cake for the rest of us.
Point 4) Social Security is a "pay-as-you-go" system. That is, those making current payments are paying for those collecting current benefits. The concept that you "earn" benefits while paying into the system is illusory.

Richard & Karen

May 30, 2007, 8:35am (report abuse)

We're following the lead of James III [12 postings back] by writing to ALL the Republican Senators up for re-election in 2008. A list can be found at: TAKE ACTION NOW!

R&K [aka: Richard & Karen]

May 30, 2007, 9:11am (report abuse)

We support the Social Security Fairness Act (S.206/H.R.82

What possessed Congress to pass these laws in the first place? Ironically, they were seen as the solution to a problem – a situation in which well-to-do individuals who had earned high incomes while paying no Social Security taxes would nonetheless qualify for substantial Social Security benefits based on a very limited history of employment in another job where they did pay Social Security taxes. Unfortunately, Congress misfired hitting a lot of innocent people while aiming at a few individuals who tried to game the system.

[to be continued]

R&K

May 30, 2007, 9:12am (report abuse)

[We support, continued]

The results have been disastrous. The fact is that this punitive and inequitable WEP targets hundreds of thousands of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants who have to work in jobs outside their public service, to help make ends meet. My wife who is affected by the GPO loses her entire spousal benefit, even though I, her husband, paid Social Security taxes for nearly 50 years. Yet, if she precedes me in death, I receive half of her TRS. Is that fair?

This is a fair piece of legislation and repeal is affordable - an estimated $4 billion per year.

~Richard~
05/30/07

R&K

May 30, 2007, 10:59am (report abuse)

For some reason the hyper-link for Senate contests in 2008 didn't print. Copy & Google the following phrase and you'll see the list: United States Senate elections, 2008
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

James III

May 30, 2007, 8:21pm (report abuse)

" The test of our progress is not
whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;
it is whether we provide enough for
those who have too little."

FDR October 5, 1937

Cindy Phillipps

May 31, 2007, 1:17pm (report abuse)

I worked in the Civilian Sector (paying into Social Security) as well as for the Government. I am now retired from the Government, but cannot possibly survive solely on my Government pension. If I go back to work, I will be double taxed because I will still have to pay Social Security even though I will not be able to collect a dime because of the GPO and WEP. Please help pass this bill so that we can rightfully collect what we earned.

R & K

June 1, 2007, 7:07am (report abuse)

PLEASE, STOP POSTING COMPLAINTS, AND DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

The Social Security Fairness Act (S.206) has been referred to THE SENATE FINANCE COMMITTEE. You can help support the effort to eliminate the WEP/GPO provisions of the Social Security Act by calling the office of Senator Baucus (D-Montana), Finance Committee Chair @ 202/224-2651 and also contacting him through http://baucus.senate.gov/contact/offices.cfm
Another ranking member of the Finance Committee to contact is is Senator Grassley (R-Iowa). He can be reached @ 202/224-3744 as well as @ http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Contact.Offices. Tell them that you support the Social Security Fairness Act (S.206) and that you want them to move it out of committee. For Heavens Sake,TAKE ACTION TODAY!
06/01/2007

James III

June 1, 2007, 8:16am (report abuse)

Just do as R & K have been telling
you ! "Action speaks louder than
words!" Refer to one of my
earliest postings (James-Nam Vet/
Sch. Adm) and check on the pivotal
states impacted by WEP/GPO. There
are 157 "ELECTORAL VOTES". With a
total of 203 electoral votes in
all impacted (14-15) states. Remember the election of 2000 ? "Cry in your beer" after you email or phone someone one in the Finance Committee! If YOU don't take action....and we lose
feel free to be guilt ridden...

Linda

June 3, 2007, 9:41pm (report abuse)

In today's society, my husband and I both have to work in order to support our family. We have two chidren and I am a teacher. If God Forbid my husband were to drop dead tomorrow, we would lose everything due to the fact that because I am a teacher, I am not entitled to my husband's social security. This is just another slap in the face to teachers. The message to teachers continues to be one of disrespect and that somehow we are beneath the general population. How do I explain this to my children and my students. Is this what democracy is all about, or is this what hypocracy is all about?

James III

June 12, 2007, 9:02am (report abuse)

To the nay sayers who say we can't
afford to fix WEP / GPO - catch
this statistic. According to
immigrationCounter.com -
$ 397,450,739,563,00 BILLION DOLLARS has been spend for Social
Security services to illegal aliens
since 1996 ! To "fix" OUR situation
might cost 85 - 90 billion over
ten years. Aren't WE USA CITIZENS ?
Do the math ! Include this info. in
your letter to the Finance Committee / Senator or Representative...

Ronald Birtch

June 15, 2007, 11:32pm (report abuse)

Fair is what you get what you are entitled to.....not what you get when you paid nothing into the program....go figure? Never have figured why this WEP/GPO went into law??

Lisa

June 18, 2007, 10:02am (report abuse)

I am considering a second career in teaching after paying into social security for 20 years. Until this bill passes, I cannot justify pursuing a teaching career. Also, as a stay-at-home mom for the last 3 years, I am incensed that my children may not be entitled to survivor benefits if something should happen to me.

CJ

June 23, 2007, 1:23pm (report abuse)

I didn't start Federal Service until I was 31. And because of a break in that Federal Service, I'm a CSRS "Offset" employee(pay CSRS AND SS), when I turn 62, my CSRS will be reduced - whether I apply for SS or not!! Not fair!! Thanks for the info on who to start contacting!

Sam

June 24, 2007, 11:33am (report abuse)

L.A. County will apply a social security offset to my pension based on my current salary. I paid into Social Security many years ago when my earnings were minimal. If WEP is not repealed, L.A. County will have reduced my pension by more than I would get from SS.

William J.Cleary Jr.

June 26, 2007, 5:12pm (report abuse)

Please pass S 206/HR 82 to remove the unfair social security offset that does not allow people who have paid into the system,to collect what should be legally theirs to receive in retirement.

Fair-for-u

June 27, 2007, 11:12am (report abuse)

By all means pass this bill after its amended that anyone who collects additional benefits under its provisions pay back taxes plus interest on the income they received from their public service jobs.

Sharon

June 27, 2007, 1:13pm (report abuse)

I worked and paid into SS for 26 years, was put out of a job due to our plant closure. I took a job as secretary at a college, not knowing about this loss of SS benefits! Wish I had known, I would NEVER have taken a government job!!!!!!!!!!!

Guy Tucker

June 27, 2007, 3:30pm (report abuse)

HR 82 needs to pass so that those who spent many years working under social security and many years working for the government and retired after 1983 can receive their full social security benefits as do those that retired before this ridiculous item was attached to Social Security law.

Katt

June 28, 2007, 4:16pm (report abuse)

Our elected officials do well to protect their own retirement benefits w/and elite system and deny others their full benefits. Government no longer truly represents the citizens but instead rules them.

Gail Loring

July 2, 2007, 6:41pm (report abuse)

If this bill does not pass, if my husband pre deceases me I will go from a comfortable (not lavish) lifestyle, into poverty.
I will be ineligible to collect my own benefits (I worked more than the required quarters and paid into social security), and ineligible for any survivor benefits. I will have an approximate income of $2200./mo. which would be about $3000 short of what I need to eat
pay utilities and upkeep the car.

Pam C

July 3, 2007, 4:59pm (report abuse)

This bill MUST pass in order to repeal previous legislation that keeps public officials from receiving deserved social security benefits. If I had been a stay-at-home housewife rather than a hard-working teacher and mom, I could receive my portion of my husband's social security (married 42 years). But because I wanted to teach, I'm supposed to LOSE what housewives otherwise get? That would be grossly unfair.
Let's pass this new law to repeal the WEP/GPO.

Chris S.

July 4, 2007, 3:06pm (report abuse)

There is a hugh outcry in the state of Ohio for professionals to share their wealth of knowledge with our students in the classroom, to take on teaching as a secondary career in life, why would they do such a thing when the result would be a reduction of 2/3 in their retirement benefits? As a teacher who began teaching later in life, I am looking at a loss of my social security benefits, my husbands social security benefits and a lower pension from teaching as it will be extremely difficult for me to achieve much more than 15 to 20 years in my teaching career. What is fair about any of that?

elizann

July 4, 2007, 4:08pm (report abuse)

Passage of HR 82 might go a long way toward restoring a modicum of lost trust in our legislators. It's called doing the right thing.

DAVIS

July 6, 2007, 9:54am (report abuse)

THEY SAY THEY CAN'T FUND THIS THEN WHY DID THEY PAY ME MY FULL
BENEFIT AS LONG AS I WORKED AND WHEN I RETIRED THEY REDUCED THE
BENEFIT IN HALF PLEASE EXPLAIN WHERE THE MONEY CAME FROM BEFORE I
RETIRED .

Tony M

July 10, 2007, 9:04pm (report abuse)

The Government Ppension Offset & Windfall Elination Provision penalize people who served their government.This is a disgrace to our country.I notice congress & the presdient is exempt along with federal judges.

James III

July 11, 2007, 9:21am (report abuse)

If possible-tune into C-SPAN !
Senator Bill Nelson (D)-FLA.
has been pushing legislation S. 935. He has been working on this
for "seven years! 39 con sponsors.
" Repeals certain provisions which
require "the offset" of amounts
paid for the surviving spouses of
former military personnel who are
"entitled" to military retired pay
or would be entitled to such pay
for being under 60 years of age."
Sound familiar ? If passed this
could lead the way for elimination
of Social Security "offsets!"
Phone or email you Rep. or Senator
ASAP ! Keep the pressure on !!

James III

July 11, 2007, 9:42am (report abuse)

Correction:

" or would be entitled to such
pay "EXCEPT" for being under
60 years of age."

RCEdlund@GForceCable.com

July 14, 2007, 9:00am (report abuse)

The Latest News:
House Ways and Means Chairman Announces Intent to Hold Hearing on Social Security Offsets!
Go to: http://www.nea.org/lac/socsec/latestnews.html Is your Congressman and Senator on the list of co-sponsors?
~ R & K ~

Lucy

July 16, 2007, 2:58pm (report abuse)

For anyone interested in doing so, you can endorse the Repeal of Social Security Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision by accessing http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?ssoffset.

Pat D.

July 20, 2007, 10:04pm (report abuse)

RE The Windfall Elimination & Government Pension Offset Provisions: How is it that these provisions apply to gov. employees in only 15 states & why were only this specific category of wage earners selected as targets for these provisions? Why were the same category of employees in the 36 remaining states exempted from these provisions? Is this capricious & discriminatory?

Laura Watson

July 21, 2007, 4:27am (report abuse)

My mother, who is now 78, worked hard for her entire adult life. She raised 3 children as a single mother, without any public assistance what so ever. She worked as a secretary for the department of agriculture for many years and then returned to school to earn a degree so that she could teach. Because she only taught for 20 years, she is receiving only a meager amount from teacher's retirement. My father who left early in my life, never paid child support and when he recently passed away, we were notified of his death by the department of social security. To make a long frustrating story shorter, the department of social security claims that she is only eligible for 16 dollars a month! This is an extremely unfair way to treat a hard working, American. She pulled herself up by her bootstraps only to have her boots taken away. Her future as an independently living person is now doubtful. Shame on the WEP and GPO! Please, please support the Social Security Fairness Act.

KIM

July 22, 2007, 12:01pm (report abuse)

I paid all of my quarters into Social Secuity and went to work for a school district as a second career. I retired at 68 years and I get 26.00 from Social Security as a result of the windfall law. I also lost my rights for my husband's benefitseven though we are married for 52 years.

Lyle West

July 22, 2007, 8:56pm (report abuse)

I taught school as well as worked in the private sector. Retired from teaching at age 72 and I'm entiled to full Social Security. Can't get full Social Security because I get state teachers retirement. Not fair!! I worked hard at both jobs to make a living for my family.

Ted

July 24, 2007, 2:55pm (report abuse)

We are talking about working class people that had to worked two jobs to raise their family. They may have worked in the private sector before or after retirement. Which ever the way it was they paid in to the Social Security System like everone else. The benefit of it is something they earned, it was not free. These people are being punished by something called Government Pension Offset (GPO) or Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) can you imagine titles like that. How unfair.

Kris Reeves

July 26, 2007, 9:44am (report abuse)

As coming into education later in life...I think that all citizens affected by this act should make a concerted effort to vote against any candidate who does not support the elimination of this act. This is the only way that Americans can have a voice. Would love to see this on a candidate's platform...he would have my vote...no matter what party affiliation.

James III

July 26, 2007, 7:25pm (report abuse)

Just about $ 500 billions dollars
spent on the Iraq war (lie!) over
a 4 1/2 year period. But will
HR 82 and S.206 ever reach the
respective floors for a vote ?
Perhaps cowardly Representatives
and Senators will let these bills
die in committee ? HHHhhhmm $ 62-
64 billion over 10 years to correct the injustice of GPO/WEP !
That's just 6 mos. of the war fare
bill ? And - don't call me unAmerican for stating this honest
facts...cuz I served my time in Vietnam ( 67-68 + "Tet Offensve").
The problem with the Senate and the
House is just "too many gutless
non servers"( no military exp. or
Peace Corps !!) THEY can pull money "out of the air" for the WAR
but cannot due justice for their
constituents !!!

Erv

July 31, 2007, 12:31am (report abuse)

There are 322 Cosponsors of HR82.They cosponsor the bill because they know that the bill will never get out of Commitee.
You need to write your Congressman to sign a discharge petition to force HR82 on to the Floor for a vote. 218 signatures are needed for the Discharge Petition to pass.

R & K

August 2, 2007, 10:08pm (report abuse)

Congress adjourns, for August Recess, at the end of this week [08/03/2007] and will not return to work in Washington, DC until after Labor Day.
SO, WHERE DO WE STAND?
H.R. 82, which would fully repeal both the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision, have garnered record numbers of cosponsors. Charlie Rangel, Ch. of the House Ways and Means Committee, has announced plans to hold a hearing on the bill. The Ways and Means hearing have not yet been scheduled. Your
Representative may tell you they co-sponsor, but have you asked what are they doing to get the bill out of the Committee?
Congress won't do a thing untill they hear from their constituents. You can make a difference by telling your friends, family and colleagues across the country about this unfairness. Writing, e-mailing, faxing or calling your
members of Congress is the only way THE SOCIAL SECURITY FAIRNESS ACT OF 2007 will get the attention it deserves. TAKE ACTION, NOW!

Fred F

August 3, 2007, 8:05am (report abuse)

Congratulations, you are getting what you voted for; a non-guaranteed retirement account. You were duped into believing that government is better capable of providing for your retirement then you were. Imagine what you could have done with the 15% of your income if you would have been able to invest it yourself, even in a simple savings account. You wouldn't be here complaining now.

James III

August 3, 2007, 8:40am (report abuse)

As usual - when a piece of legislation " for deserving citizens" is getting close to possible passage...the "fiscal
neo-cons" come out of the closet
to be snide. I have many friends
who have decent retirements due
to solid investments and a 401 K.
But "NOT ONE " is interested in giving up their FULL Social Security check which was justly earned over the years. That's what
"WE" want - out FULL Social Security check without a 40-60%
offset / reduction. I bet the
complaining "NEO-CONS" are lard
asses who never served their
country in the military or otherwise. They are called "chicken
hawks" for good reason !

Bien Hoa - Sully 67-68 "Tet Offense "
US Army

Erin

August 6, 2007, 3:23pm (report abuse)

This bill is sorely needed. Teachers and other government workers who also paid into the social security system should get their benefits upon retirement.

Gary from Long Beach

August 8, 2007, 2:49pm (report abuse)

Fred is yet another pathetically ignorant man who doesn't understand the issue. Many of us do exactly that: have personal retirement accounts. The issue is being denied a portion of retirement that is rightfully due, not whether or not we have additional funding sources for retirement.

James from Long Island

August 10, 2007, 11:05am (report abuse)

I wasn't even aware that these pieces of legislation even existed until just recently bit I think it's totally unfair that federal retirees AND their spouses would be required to give up some of the benefits that they worked their entire lives for, especially to take away a portion of their Social Security benefits, something that a non-federal employee has paid into. This is not right.

Jim

August 11, 2007, 12:11pm (report abuse)

I, too, am being penalized by the Windfall aand Offset Laws. What I want to know is why only California and 13 other states were targeted by these unfair and hurtful acts.

James III

August 11, 2007, 1:39pm (report abuse)

As I recall California and the
other thirteen states elected
not to continue - having their
public employees ( teachers, firemen, police,etc) contribute
to Social Security. They opted to
build individual state retirement
programs " defined benefit" but
forgetting that many public employees had participated in Social Security well before becoming public employees. I, like
SO MANY others, was not aware of
the "offsets" until I sat down
with a Social Security official
to determine my payment from Soc.
Sec. And - all of us NEVER received
advanced notice of a reduced payment. This has been rectified
by recent legislation. But " A day
late and a dollar short !"

Cathy S.

August 15, 2007, 11:11am (report abuse)

My husband is a retired Postal worker (Civil Service) and I am a Postal worker (FERS). If I pass on before my husband he is penalized and can not receive any SS that I have put into the system. This is extremely unfair to "public servents" of this country. I would like to know what has been done with all of this extra money that the government gets to keep. My husband will not be able to eat, pay the bills and live a comfortable life if I die any time soon. He will go from living a comfortable (not lavish) life to poverty. This bill must be passed and must be passed soon.

gene

August 20, 2007, 5:45pm (report abuse)

REMEMBER UNDER WHAT ADMISTRATION THIS MONEY WAS STOLEN FROM US TO PAY FOR STAR WARS AND HE DID IT WITH A SMILE HE GAVE 8 MILLION ILLEGALS THE RIGHT TO DRAW SS WHILE TAKING THE BREAD OFF MY TABLE AND GIVING IT TO CROOKS

Francis Selewski

August 21, 2007, 10:49am (report abuse)

I am a retired federal employee who spent over ten years in private industry before I worked for the government. This past year, I finally past the $300.00 mark in my monthly SS Income. My wife, who stayed at home and raised our 5 children is still not receiving $200. Of course she is being penalized because I am a federal retiree and receive a small portion of what I should be getting. Her amount is more than half of mine so she must earn her monthly SS paynment on her own merits. Living in Michigan, an auto town, there are many women and a few men who receive SS based upon their spouses income. Many have never worked or contributed to SS but reap the benefits. I feel that this is unfair To my wife and I. I am proud of my thirty years I spent in Federal service. I never knew it would be a disadvantage to me in this time when every penny counts. The government has made benefits available to immigrants who never contributed, so why should we be penalized. Please vote to amend the law.

Robert Hutcherson

August 24, 2007, 2:36pm (report abuse)

Earned should mean something. Apparently congress doesn't think so, thus the Off-Set and Wep for Social Security. As a veteran(2-7-57 thru 1-24-64) USAF, some of my veteran friends receive full earned benefits while others who retired after Sept 1987 have their Social Security earned benefits Off-Set. Why some and not others?

R&K [aka: Richard & Karen]

August 25, 2007, 12:09pm (report abuse)

URGENT! Go to . Make your voice heard today! SIGN NEA's ELECTRONIC PETITION!!

R & K

August 25, 2007, 12:13pm (report abuse)

Sorry. The web site for the petition is: http://www.nea.org/lac/socsec/latestnews.html

margaret Hart

August 26, 2007, 12:44pm (report abuse)

I was informed by the SS office, my ss would not be offset, My gov. retirement papers state GOP/NA. And I lost all of my widows checks any way. I would not have retired at 72 had I had correct information. Had I continued working I would still have my widows SS check. Doesn't make sence to me. I need to get reinstated in my job without any penalty. Praying for the passage of HR82.

Bill

August 28, 2007, 6:11pm (report abuse)

The government tells everyone how rewarding teaching is, encourages people to do it as a second career after many years in the public sector where these individuals pay into S.S. But the govt. doesn't tell them that, "by the way, your're going to loss 1/2 of your S.S. for becoming a govt. employee. Worse, at least in Calif. govt employees who are NOT teachers to NOT suffer this loss, people who pay pension benefits into what is called CalPERS while the state teachers paying into CalSTRS DO take this financial loss. The govt can't even be even-handed about its discrimination.

Helen Stripling

August 30, 2007, 4:51pm (report abuse)

As a retired Federal teacher of 38 years, I am being penalized from receiving any social security benefits from my husband after a marriage of 42 years and then a divorce. Please pass this Bill for fair treatment of working people.

R & K

September 4, 2007, 8:07am (report abuse)

Folks, if you have'nt gone to: [http://www.nea.org/lac/socsec/latestnews.html] and made your voices heard by signing the petition, you need to do that TODAY!

~ TAKE ACTION, NOW ~

Another apparent neo-con

September 5, 2007, 4:29pm (report abuse)

As I read the SS provisions, GPO deals with benefits due to a spouse, while WEP deals with personal earnings. WEP says if you are earning a pension (whether SS or govt) you can't "double-dip." Therefore, if your SS is reduced due to a public pension, it will not be reduced more than half of your pension. You still get more than the pension and more than SS.
(cont. in next post)

same neo-con

September 5, 2007, 4:31pm (report abuse)

(previous post cont.)
GPO, on the other hand, says you are entitled to your own SS benefits or your spouse's benefits (if you don't work), but not both. If both of you paid SS, you'll both get benefits. When your spouse dies, you do not receive ALL of the spouse's benefits because you have your own. If you never worked you get all the spouse's benefits. With GPO, it's referring to public pension instead of SS. If you're already receiving a pension from your own job, your spouse will get his/her SS. If your spouse dies, the SS will be drastically reduced for you because you have your own income. I understand some cases may be incredibly unfair, but overall, it sounds like it sucks but makes sense. Anyone other than Jim III, please help me see what I am missing. (Jim III has lost all credibility with me in his personal attack of someone providing an alternative viewpoint.) Thanks.

Dan

September 6, 2007, 5:39am (report abuse)

When this was passed Congress exempted themselves (typical) for ones that can vote pay raises for themselves, is it any wonder Congress has low approval ratings... my mother at 76-yrs old is having to try to find work in order to make ends meet, these are the type jobs that not even illegal aliens want...

Ollie Wallock

September 6, 2007, 2:42pm (report abuse)

Here's one for you.For the past thirteen years I have owned a part time business hand producing electronic devices.Because of my teaching position,there was no ss taxes taken out of my part time earnings as I was still paying into the state retirement fund.I have always been eligible for ss benefits but not being a greedy guy, the issue didn't bother me much(even though I had contributed to both systems). My first tax bill after retiring contained a $1500 social security tax. It seems that after paying all my ss taxes in a previous life,I will continue to pay ss taxes in my retired life. In both cases this is money that will never be available to me.As said I am not greedy,but the thought of forcing a retiree into paying for non existent benefits is onerous.

James III

September 8, 2007, 1:08pm (report abuse)

Friday, September 7th, 2007 was
a good day for Americans and those
striving to obtain a college education. Congress passed the College Cost Reduction & Access Act
at a cost of 20.9 billion. College
costs have soared 40% the past
5 years. This is the largest overhaul in more than 60 years !
President Bush said he would sign it ! Keep the faith...and keep the pressure on ! Congress is in "the
mood" to DO the right thing for it's hard working citizens !!!! The Social Security Fairness Act is
projected - if passed - to cost
67 billion over 10 years. Or, only
6 months of the Iraq War bill...

R. Ferguson

September 12, 2007, 5:32pm (report abuse)

What's the status on H.R 82/H.R. 147 and theSenate Version S. 206?
If so many are in support of these bills, why aren't they moving forward?

Lynda

September 20, 2007, 1:05pm (report abuse)

I have just retired with over 30 years of service to the Feds. Additionally, I have contributed over 15 years (well over 40 quarters) into SS from full time and part time civilan jobs. I will lose over 60% of my SS annuity because of this Windfall Elimination and the Government Offset Provision. To say I am upset is to say the least. These provisions must be eliminated and the only way that will happen is if S.206 (and H.R.82) is enacted.
We all know how unfair the GPO and the WEP is, and we all know that providing SS benefits to illegals is a total travesty to all of the dedicated and loyal civil servants who contributed to what they thought was going to be their retirement funds.....THIS BILL MUST GET THE ATTENTION IT DESERVES; WRITE TO YOUR CONGRESSMAN, WRITE TO YOUR SENATOR. WRITE TO YOUR NEWSPAPERS AND TELL THEM ABOUT THIS TRAVESTY. We contributed to Social Security to provide for OUR benefits....not for illegals.

Charlene

September 21, 2007, 3:50pm (report abuse)

I worked 36 years for a local government agency and am currently working for a state univerity paying both pension and Social Security. My husband worked 29 years with Social Security Benefits. Upon his death because of my government job I am not able to receive his SS benefits> When I retire, I will have my government pension offset> I am paying for full Social Security deductions and believe that when I apply for my pension, I should not have it reduced because I have SS. This is unfair. People in the private section can have a pension without reduction and also claim SS. REPEAL THIS PROVISION.

Joan Smith

September 24, 2007, 12:05pm (report abuse)

I've worked most of my life and paid all quarters of SS I'm working as a school nurse I'm paying into teachers pay and I'm collecting the full amunt of my SS, but if I retire I understand some of my SS wikk be taken, this is not fair.

Russ Elsner

September 24, 2007, 2:03pm (report abuse)

Don't forget it was a Clinton that did this to us. Remember in 08.

James III

September 24, 2007, 5:08pm (report abuse)

A little addition information
- please as to exactly what "Clinton did to us"?
The GPO / WEP came into being
during the Reagan admin. So it has
been around for at least 25 yrs.
Every Congress since then has
denied US our just due !!
More info...Russ - -

R & K

September 25, 2007, 12:09pm (report abuse)

Dear Neo-con. Not meant disparagingly – I’ve no other way to address you. What possessed Congress to pass these laws in the first place? Ironically, they were seen as the solution to a problem – a situation in which well-to-do individuals who had earned high incomes while paying no Social Security taxes would nonetheless qualify for substantial Social Security benefits based on a very limited history of employment in another job where they did pay Social Security taxes. Unfortunately, Congress misfired hitting a lot of innocent people while aiming at a few individuals who tried to game the system.

The results have been disastrous. The fact is that this punitive and inequitable provision targets hundreds of thousands of teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public servants who must work a second job to make ends meet. The offset of survivors’ benefits does special injury to low-income and middle income people. [cont. in next post]

R & K [cont]

September 25, 2007, 12:10pm (report abuse)

[cont. from prev. post] Those folks who worked as clerical employees, cafeteria workers, bus drivers, librarians, and teachers, are pushed to live near, or even below, the poverty level.

There is unprecedented support from Members of Congress though some continue to express concerns about the “cost” of more than $70 billion over ten-years to fully repeal the GPO and WEP. The war in Irag cost that much every six month.

This legislation would end the unfairness, and you should take a stand by urging your members of Congress to move the Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 forward.

I do hope some of this helps.
9/25/2007

R & K [addendum]

September 25, 2007, 12:28pm (report abuse)

As James III stated, House Speaker Tip O'Neill fostered the GPO during the Reagan administration. Then, Dan Rostenkowski added the WEP before he went to prison for stealing from the American People. He now receives a pension of $126,000. Imagine someone in Corporate America convicted of stealing from their company. How much do you think that person's pension would be?

James III

September 28, 2007, 9:41am (report abuse)

Summary:

There ain't no money for Social
Security Fairness Act. It's all
going to da WAR ! Our "boy-General
President" is getting his way:
09/26/07 $ 42.3 Billion in "emergency" funding! 2008 war
bill will be near $ 190 billion.
Total WAR cost at $800 billion
at years end (o7 or 08). Congress
is pulling "money out of the sky"
House: 328 cosponsors. Senate 34
co sponsorts. As of this date no
"hearing" on WEP /GPO as requested by Rep. Rangel in letter 06/27/07.
Dems. promised to "pay as you go
on legislation" (except for da WAR)
so where is our $ 60 - 70 billion
for our "just due" gonna come
from. Shameful situation !

Vietnam Vet 67-68 Bien Hoa

Brian Balkcom

September 28, 2007, 1:52pm (report abuse)

Few issues are as grossly unfair, maddening and nonsensical, and counterproductive to our society as the WEP/GPO provisions of Title II of the SS Act! One issue does come to mind, however. That would be for the U.S. Congress and Senate to fail to repeal these provisions! Both houses have bills currently pending to do this. There appears to be strong support in both houses for passage. There appears to be little, if any, public opposition, and it makes monumentous sense to do it. Consequently, knowing that Congress does not pay into SS itself and continues to enjoy the best retirement plan on earth for its elected members, and knowing that Congress is extremely adept at spending (and often wasting) other people’s money, it will no doubt fail to pass the bill and echo the pitiful, self-serving cry, “We tried.” Make sure you write (or email) your Congressman and register your support for this pending legislation.

Monica Latsko

September 29, 2007, 9:54pm (report abuse)

Realizing that Social Security is heading for trouble,my suggestion to help appeal to the governement to CHANGE the amount that is deducted from our SS under the Windfall/Offset. I will be penaltalized by the offset and at the 2/3 (66%)of my state retirement earnings. I suggest to show good faith that our law makers begin with a change in that amount. Reduce the amount deducted and give us a feeling that the changing of this unfair act is as important to members of the House as it is to us.
Thank you

Erv

September 29, 2007, 11:30pm (report abuse)

Retired people do not have a Union.The closests we have for a Union is AARP, and the State Retired Teacher Associatons. AARP refuses to push the GOP-WEP and my Union the American Federation of Teachers is not interested either. If these organizations really got behind HR82 maybe it would pass out of committee so it could be voted on by the House and Senate.

James III

September 30, 2007, 9:48am (report abuse)

Sorry Monica but I ain't gonna
grovel before Congress for a
reduced Gpo/WEP "deduction".
It's unfair - plain and simple.
Hey "kids" just remember if you
serve just one six year term in
the Senate you get a $ 126,000
pension ? Correct me if I'm wrong.
I'm done. I'll just wait to see
if any action is taken in October.
Our only hope in 2008 or 2009 is
having the Dems in the majority
in both houses. Dems, at least
have "a heart" and social conscience.

Bob

September 30, 2007, 10:42pm (report abuse)

These laws are a joke, but they're a bipartisan joke. The Dems actually controlled the house when both laws were passed. I guess the social conscience thing must be new? Both parties only care about getting reelected. If there is enough pressure on them it could happen.

The GPO was a provision in the 1977 Social Security Amendments signed into law by President Jimmy Carter, at a time when the Democrats controlled both the House and Senate.
From-
http://www.massretirees.com/pension-offset-windfall-explained.html

The WEP was enacted as part of the 1983 Social Security Refinancing Act, designed to shore up the financing of the Social Security Trust Fund. That Act was signed into law by President Ronald Reagan, after being adopted by the Democratic-controlled House

RSS Feeds for This Bill

Keep yourself updated on user contributions and debates about this bill! (Learn more about RSS.)