S. 206 would amend title II of the Social Security Act to repeal the Government pension offset and windfall elimination provisions.
Detailed Summary
Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 - Amends title II (Old Age, Survivors and Disability Insurance) (OASDI) of the Social Security Act to repeal: (1) government pension offset requirements applicable to husband's and wife's insurance benefits, widow's and widower's insurance benefits, and mother's and father's insurance benefits with respect to OASDI payments; and (2) windfall elimination requirements with respect to computation of an individual's primary insurance amount.
Status of the Legislation
Introduced by Sen. Feinstein, with Sen. Collins, Lautenberg, and Snowe; had 35 sponsors and co-sponsors as of 9/07/07. Referred to Committee on Finance.
Senator John Kerry has scheduled a hearing on 11/06/07 of the Senate Finance Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy. Typewritten submissions for the record must state your full name and address and the title and date of the hearing ("GPO and WEP: Policies Affecting Pensions from Work Not Covered by Social Security" November 6, 2007). Statements must be mailed before 11/20 to:
Senate Committee on Finance
Attn. Editorial and Document Section
Rm. SD-203
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200b
Points in Favor
Current GPO and WEP rules take away Social Security rights that people earned because someone in their family served in public service jobs outside of the system. For example, a wife who never worked would get 50% of her husband's retirement benefits. However, if she worked as a librarian in many states, she would get none of these benefits. In another case, a coal miner turned fire fighter might be denied most of his own Social Security retirement benefits earned in the mines, because his later employer chose not to participate in Social Security.
Overall, it discourages people from taking a career in public service, or tracks them between covered and non-covered employers. Former teachers in one school district cannot afford to serve in another district, making it harder to fill needed positions everywhere.
Points Against
Social Security benefits are intended to replace only a percentage of a worker's pre-retirement earnings. The way Social Security benefit amounts are figured, lower-paid workers get a higher return than highly paid workers. For example, lower-paid workers could get a Social Security benefit that equals about 55 percent of their pre-retirement earnings. The average replacement rate for highly paid workers is about 25 percent.
Before 1983, people who worked mainly in a job not covered by Social Security had their Social Security benefits calculated as if they were long-term, low-wage workers. The effect of this was that their record looked like that of a person who had worked most of their life at lower paying jobs. This gave them an advantage because they received a Social Security benefit representing a higher percentage of their earnings than was intended, plus a pension from a job where they did not pay Social Security taxes. For that reason Congress passed the Windfall Elimination Provision to remove that advantage.
For those who have worked at both Social Security covered jobs and non-covered jobs there is a provision to reduce the offset. For every year of substantial Social Security covered earnings in excess of twenty years the offset is reduced. It is entirely possible for an individual to have enough Social Security earnings to completely eliminate the offset. The table for substantial earnings can be found at:
www.ssa.gov/pubs/10045.html#exceptions
A detailed explanation and chart showing the maximum amount of the offset is at:
www.ssa.gov/retire2/wep-chart.htm
This is a fair and equitable way to reduce the unfair advantage that some individuals gained prior to the enactment of the Windfall Elimination Provision, while still providing some measure of coverage under Social Security.
Visitor Comments
James III
September 13, 2007, 7:41pm (report abuse)rgiles..is quoting Rep. Charles
Rangel who , hopefully, will
hold a sub committee meeting
on the impact of GPO / WEP...
before the end of this month
(Sept.07)
Robert Hutcherson
September 14, 2007, 11:59am (report abuse)Shame on those legislators who enacted the Social Security Off-Set, penalizing those who EARNED benefits. Those selected to be penalized are those who retired after September 1987. This method of selection seems to encompass the majority of those veterans who served during the Viet Nam Era. Shame on those legislators who allow this to continue by letting bills die in committee year after year without voting to end this disgrace!
Jan Sternisha
September 19, 2007, 10:10am (report abuse)I worked for 15 years in the private sector and now 23 in the public schools. Please support this bill so that people who have worked in more than one sector can receive SS that they and/or their spouses contributed to.
Stephen
September 20, 2007, 3:42pm (report abuse)I thought we lived in a country that cared about people--life, liberty and pursuit of happiness as all the politicians like to say. To take our hard earned retirement dollars away from us is not caring, nor humane, nor fair. No other Western country gives it citizens as unfair a shake as this.
Please...call your reps. We must pass this bill.
T & P Y.
September 21, 2007, 1:40pm (report abuse)Please pass this bill! - My wife will get nothing at retirement and I am currently penalized by the obsolete WEP/GPOffset laws. This is URGENTLY needed to help protect the SS earnings of honest, hardworking American Citizens (not illegal imigrants). Even though I had over 30 years of credited service with the Fed Gov't, I have worked in a SS paying job for more than the 40 quarters required for full SS retirement - yet illegal imigrants get more than I do already in terms of community/social services.
Benjammin
September 24, 2007, 9:57pm (report abuse)This legislation should be passed. Quit stealing from the Soc. Sec. fund to make low interest loans, and take the money that is being wasted on maintaining outmoded military weapons systems to put the Soc. Sec. fund back in the black!
Jack Griggs
September 25, 2007, 10:30am (report abuse)I worked in Law Enforcement for 40 years and paid into social security plus paid into my city's retirement plan. Upon retirement at age 64 I learned that I would NOT RECEIVE FULL SOCIAL SECURITY BENEFITS even though I had more than enough to qualify for benefits. I was counting on this to supplement my retirement and now find myself seeking employment to be able to retire where I thought I would be financially.
kara bradstreet
September 26, 2007, 8:22pm (report abuse)I am a Civil Service employee for 30+ years and my husband owned his own trucking business. He paid into SS for over 30 years, and now that he is gone I am being placed in jeopardy of losing window's benefits if I retire. I am 67 years old and feel my husband worked hard all those years to support people who just don't want to work.
Connie S.
October 3, 2007, 6:16pm (report abuse)I am a spouse of a retired CHP office from California. I am 60 and have worked for 42 of those 60 yrs in the public sector. If my spouse dies before I do I will be robbed of most if not all of my ss because of his pension. This is so wrong, because his pension hardly meets our monthly needs as it is. How am I ever going to be able to retire?
H. Caldwell
October 3, 2007, 10:13pm (report abuse)I served 22 years, in the military(Navy) went to work after retirement for civil service. My SS has been cut 60% due to the quote (Double Dipping). I served with honor with low pay during my military years and paid into SS. I feel that this bill needs to pass to rectify a major problem for a lot of Americans who do not deserve being shortchanged what they earned as wage earners.
E Pontious
October 11, 2007, 1:47am (report abuse)Before I became a teacher, I paid into the SS System. I am now a retired teacher, and I feel that it is totally unfair that I cannot receive any social security benefits nor from my husband's benefits. It's about time that legislators do something for the people who have paid into social security at one time in their lives, and they are now being penalized because of other types of jobs they now have or have had in the past. Please show some compassion and fairness to those of us who have worked hard for the public sector. Thanks!
Bill Chenoweth
October 12, 2007, 10:45pm (report abuse)I have paid 30 years into SS. I am also a FED retiree. I worked two jobs for 17 years full time. I am still paying SS and don't plan to retire untill this bill gets passed. I can't. I'm told by high level people in SS that there is no way in hell congress will pass this since it costs too much and because they have no pressure since most people who will be affected by this aren't aware of it and won't be until they retire. Come on guys we need help. If anyone knows anything emial be at wgc@pobox.upenn.edu
James III
October 13, 2007, 10:54am (report abuse)Libertarian and satrist writer
PJ O'Rourke wrote a book way back in 1991. The title was "Parliament
of Whores". It was a biting
indictment of the ineptitude of
Congress to get anything worthwhile
accomplished. It's October 2007
and "the more things change...the
more they remain the same!"
Larry Couser
October 15, 2007, 2:44pm (report abuse)I retired from teaching in 2000. For ALL of my adult life I worked two jobs. Teaching did not pay into SS but my second FULL time job did pay into SS. I now find that all of the money paid into SS will go to paying benefits for illegal workers. I am not against anyone receiving benefits. I am very disappointed with my representatives in Washington D.C..
I urge Congress to repeal these two very bad laws. Support passage of the Fairness in Social Security Act.
John G
October 15, 2007, 10:13pm (report abuse)I voted no on this bill by mistake. I moved my hand and pressed my hand, very very sorry. This law has affected me as my SS has been cut by 2/3.
Harriett Handspike
October 17, 2007, 7:56am (report abuse)I Retired from the Federal Government with 28 yrs of service. I am now employed for a non-profit organization. Why should I have to continue paying into Social Security when I only receive 2/3 of the benefits I am entitled to?
Ruth Ann Henke
October 18, 2007, 2:41pm (report abuse)I think many of the other comments say it all. Please repeal these laws. They only penalize the people who have worked so very hard at community "service" jobs all their lives to make ends meet and then are penalized because they did work so hard. Please see how unfair GPO and WEP are, and repeal them. If others can draw retirement/pensions from all their jobs, why can't those of us who worked hard in community service do the same? Surely it would be more cost-effective than paying for our expenses when we fall below the poverty level.
John J. Williams
October 18, 2007, 7:02pm (report abuse)I am 62. For 35 years, I receive CSRS disability retirement "annuity" check. Am now considering applying for SS benefits, and am confronted with WEP and GPO. Both WEP and GPO talk about SS benefits being reduced if you receive a gov. "pension." Black's Law Dictionary neither defines "annuity" as a "pension" nor "pension" as an "annuity." An "annuity" for disability retirement is supposed to compensate for injury received caused by employment while "pension" is a deferred system of payment for services rendered. Therefore, an "annuity" is not a "pension" nor vice-versa, and neither WEP nor GPO should apply. So why am I told that we will suffer WEP + GPO losses? I also receive VA comp. for service-connected disabilities that doesn't impact WEP or GPO, so why should my Civil Service disabilities impact them? Thanks. John Williams, wizguru@jjwill.com
Mike And Cathy
October 22, 2007, 11:53am (report abuse)My wife and I are being penalized almost $4000.00 a year because of this unfair law. Civil servants get the shaft again.
Dylan
October 23, 2007, 5:45am (report abuse)Like many others, I worked outside of government for many years earning Social Security entitlements. Little did I know that after the fact, my social security benefits would be severely reduced because the Congress didn't want to reward those employees who worked minimal part-time jobs to earn sufficient credits to qualify for Social Security.
This law is so unfair to apply the law to so many people who worked in the private sector before or after working for government.
I contacted everyone I could regarding this patently unfair provision.
Hillary Clinton responded saying that it should be placed in a larger Social Security provision...ie. buried in some other legislation that also has no chance of passing.
Needless to say, Ms. Clinton's lack of concern for our plight is not endearing me to her campaign.
I urge all of you to contact Ms. Clinton to find out why she feels that this extremely important provision (to us) is of no concern to her.
James III
October 23, 2007, 8:46am (report abuse)The solution is quite simple.
This country needs a "massive
over haul" on domestic priorities:
roads and bridges,S-Chip,
universal health care ( like Europehas -), mandatory youth
service to the "country ( military,
social work, environmental issues,
etc. Get it ? We need another
" FDR " with a competent cabinet!
James B
October 24, 2007, 2:51pm (report abuse)Someone wrote "Why didn't you put your money into a 401k". Well when I started working as a Firefighter in 1968 there was no 401k or anything like that. If I had known that the GPO/WEP was going to be put into efect I would have made some kind of plans different than my FF pension (which is not much) and SS which will be only enough to pay for my medicare. Like all FF's we worked a part time job which we payed SS, we were told that would supplement our retirement, that was why we did not receive a larger paycheck and thus a larger retirement. This was told to us by our Town Board when we would try for a pay raise. My first paycheck was $86.00 a week. I have told my Wife that She will get 60 percent of my retirement when I die which will cut out Her SS She has worked for. She has worked and payed into SS for almost 50 years. Is this fair to Her? I am sorry Dear I made this promise to you and the Government took it away. If I could change it I would!!! I love you
Kate
October 30, 2007, 10:35am (report abuse)How unfair we have been treated! It is time to fight back and call attention to this bill.
Good luck to all of you and the fight ahead of us.
R & K October 31, 2007
October 31, 2007, 9:18am (report abuse)GPO/WEP Hearing Scheduled for November 6!!
The Senate Finance Committee’s Subcommittee on Social Security, Pensions, and Family Policy, chaired by Senator Kerry (D-MA), has announced that they will hold a hearing on the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision on Tuesday, November 6. MTA/NEA Retired member, Peggy Kane – a high school English teacher for 35 years who retired four years ago from the Medford Public School system in Massachusetts – will testify at the hearing.
Announcement of the hearing is a huge victory for NEA members and other activists who have been pushing hard for movement on legislation to repeal the GPO and WEP.
[continued in next post]
R&K [continued]
October 31, 2007, 9:22am (report abuse)The Subcommittee will accept written submissions for the record. Your statement must be typewritten and single-spaced, not exceeding 10 pages in length. The first page must clearly state your full name and address as well as the title and date of the hearing (“GPO and WEP: Policies Affecting Pensions from Work Not Covered by Social Security” November 6, 2007).
Statements must be MAILED (not faxed) to:
Senate Committee on Finance
Attn. Editorial and Document Section
Rm. SD-203
Dirksen Senate Office Bldg.
Washington, DC 20510-6200b
R&K [finale]
October 31, 2007, 9:27am (report abuse)Statements must be received no later than two weeks after the hearing. In submitting a story for the record, please:
Follow exactly all the submission standards as outlined above.
Be clear and concise in your message.
Tell your story using polite language and urge Congress to repeal the GPO and
WEP.
Be sure to correct all spelling or grammatical errors prior to submitting.
Stay Up-To-Date! The latest GPO/WEP news is posted on NEA’s Legislative Action Center at http://www.nea.org/lac/socsec/index.html.
Jana Adams
October 31, 2007, 8:17pm (report abuse)I wonder why this is stuck in committee. We are not being treated as legislators would want themselves treated. I stay informed on many issues and will remember every election day that I worked (and still working two jobs) 40 some years only to have half my expected social security pension go into thin air.
James III
November 2, 2007, 10:00am (report abuse)Just a reminder ! If you have
cable - tune in to C-Span or
C-Span II on Tuesday, Nov 6th
to seen if this important
subcomittee is " on the air!"
After viewing - please follow the
recommendations of R & K. The last
push for "OUR just due!!"
Ted S
November 6, 2007, 10:06am (report abuse)We are not asking for anything that we did not pay for..We are American working people that have given our time to this country and would do it all over again..All we ask for justice..If we can provide for those that have never given a dime we should surely take care of those who gave their lives. Shame on those opposed..
William Smith
November 6, 2007, 2:17pm (report abuse)I paid into Social Security 24 years while working for an oil company. I was laid-off in 1986 and went to work for a school district that did not collect Social Security tax, only collected Texas Teacher Retirement. Now that I am retired my Social Security benefit is reduced by almost the same amount as my Texas Teacher Retirement benefit. I paid into both Social Security and Texas Teacher Retirement. It is totally unfair to reduce my Social Security benefit because I receive Teacher Retirement. I am just asking for what I paid for- nothing more. S. 206 and HR 82 should pass and make the Social Security Fairness Act of 2007 into law.
Fay Coble
November 7, 2007, 3:07pm (report abuse)I am 66 years old and still work as a community college counselor because my STRS retirement isn't enough to live on without getting my full Social Security retirement amount. Luckily I love my job and am healthy enough to continue a few more years until my STRS will be enough to get by on. All of my Social Security benefits were earned before I came to work in education and I stand to lose most of it. If I had known the consequences of having retirement in both systems I would have stayed in my other career field just taken a different job when I got hurt and had to have a less physical job. Both WEP and GPO penalize those of us who didn't work in education for our entire careers. I am but one of many is this situation.
Jo Frances
November 8, 2007, 1:05pm (report abuse)I am a widow and I have reached retirement age but cannot afford to retire as my survivor benefits would be reduced to $176 mo and my Government Pension is only $1031. The laws governing Social Security Supplemental Income needs to be revisited; legal immigrants from other countries are eligible to receive these benefits 6 months after arrival if disabled and if they have children they can also collect Public Assistance benefits for them. But widow's and their children are penalized even though they had a wage earner paying into Social Security.
Bonnie
November 8, 2007, 7:34pm (report abuse)Everyone here has a comment, but can anyone answer a question? Does the WEP and GPO take effect if a person is not yet vested into a state retirement system but is paying in? In CT, we vest at 10 years of service. I have only 3 years in and so if I quit today I would take my retirement and roll it as a lump sum into an IRA. If I'm not yet collecting retirement, and quit teaching to go back into the private sector before vesting, will I escape the WEP and GPO (I have 25 years already in the private sector, paying into SS)? If you know or can tell me where to go to find out, please e-mail me.
bonniemichelle@optonline.net
Richard [aka: R&K]
November 9, 2007, 7:11am (report abuse)Bonnie, you're a prime example of what's wrong. If you vest after ten years the 25 you've accrued WILL be affected. If you take the lump sum, you MAY be asked about the three years that appear blank on your earnings statement when you apply for SocSec. Your answer might determine whether the offsets apply.
Dan
November 10, 2007, 12:21pm (report abuse)Ronald Regan really put it to the Civil Service Retired worker By passing the GOP AND WEP. He didn't want double dippers. However we paid into the ss before our government jobs and continue to pay ss with the jobs we have after retirement. So repeal this law and just give us what we paid for. It shouldn't be that difficult. Or stop taking ss taxes out of out wages and give back in a lump sum what we paid into ss. After all it's our earned money. If the shoe were on the other foot this law wouldn't have been passed in the first place. The Government can tell you how much money you can make after you retire but they can't control the price of a gallon of GAS.
L. Newbury
November 12, 2007, 2:51pm (report abuse)I have been a teacher for 40 years and am about to retire. My Social Security benefits will be cut more than half without this bill. I paid into SS and I paid into teacher retirement--without any choice on my part. I deserve to get the full amount of my SS benefits.
Jim
November 12, 2007, 4:26pm (report abuse)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. The provision originated in the Senate Finance Committee, then chaired by Sen. Russell Long (D-LA). House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Al Ullman (D-OR) pushed through an amendment in the House to provide a five-year transition period so that the GPO was not effective until 1982. Subsequent amendments changed the effective date to 1983
Jim
November 12, 2007, 4:38pm (report abuse)President Reagan signed the amendments into P.L. 98-21 on April 20, 1983.
James III
November 12, 2007, 6:19pm (report abuse)My late father-in-law had a
great saying that I loved.
" If I'm gonna get screwed
I wanna get kissed first!"
We need another "Roosevelt"
in November 08 ! Vote Republican
and you might as well start
puckering up.....
Willie D Smith
November 13, 2007, 7:23am (report abuse)The reason the government does not want to pay the benefits is they have taken all the money out of social security by borrowing it and not paying it back.
Willie D Smith
November 13, 2007, 8:06am (report abuse)All of us should also consider supporting HR 149. This bill would REPEAL THE SOCIAL SECURITY EARNINGS TEST. IT TAXES YOUR INCOME TWICE. WHEN YOU APPLY THERE IS A 25% REDUCTION IN BENEFITS, A 12,960 LIMIT ON EARNINGS, AND A 50% BACKED ENDED TAX. ADD THE FEDERAL, STATE, LOCAL, AND FICA TAXES AND THE TAX COULD GO UP TO A 100% MARGINALLY.
Robert Van Istendal
November 13, 2007, 7:45pm (report abuse)I worked as a fire fighter for 24 years until a building collapsed and buried me and shortened my career, I did not pay into social security during this time. But after recovering from my injuries I have driven a school bus for 19 years, which is 9 more than other people need to work in order to receive their full benefits, and I only receive 40% of what I should receive, even though I paid the full amount into social security, I was not charged only 40% paying into the system.
Someone else from a well to do family could live off their folks for most of their lives and then decide to work for only 10 years and they get full amount, Immigrants can come here and work only 10 years and get full amount and yet the Educators and the Police and Firefighters that protected your families cannot.
Just because we choose careers that help others and did not pay in during that time we should not be a penalized for that time .
Mary Causey
November 14, 2007, 8:29am (report abuse)I also feel the recipient should get all Social Security benefits for which they are entitled. Gogernment pensons should not effect the Social Security benefits or Social Security should have any effect on pensions. Both have been earned through contributions.
Paul M. Petkovsek
November 18, 2007, 9:11am (report abuse)This bill is a good start, but if Congress is really interested in making Social Security fair and better, they would have everyone participate and have equal benefits.
The great injustice at this time is that some public employees cannot participate in Social Security in their full time job, but will never collect on the moonlight jobs they work to make ends meet.
marge smithers
November 21, 2007, 6:52pm (report abuse)I also agree with the elimination of the GPO and WEP. My husband is ret military and has been paying i8n the Survivors Benefit Plan for almost 40 years, and it too, is offset with SS.
I think this too should be addressed. There is too many spouses left with very little money to survive on.
James III
November 22, 2007, 10:46am (report abuse)Paul M. Pet--- above is misinformed
about the majority of "us" affected
by GPO & WEP. We "are not" moon
lighters. The majority have at least 10 qualifed soc. sec, years
(= 40 quarters) of full time work.
I had 26 years in the Calif. public
school system as well as "22 years
" of soc.sec. earnings. Many people
had long careers in the private
sector only to be negated by
"very unfair GPO & WEP provisions.
Happy Thanksgiving !!!
Joe
November 23, 2007, 3:26pm (report abuse)You will work until you die and you will like it.
MARY N.
November 26, 2007, 12:10pm (report abuse)THIS HAS TO BE CHANGED IT IS UNFAIR FOR PEOPLE TO WORK AND NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR MONEY THEY EARNED AND HAVE TO END UP ON STATE WELFARE, TO LIVE AND PAY FOR THE BARE THINGS SUCH AS FOOD, MEDS, AND A ROOF OVER YOUR HEAD, LETS GET THE GOVERNMENT TO STOP DECRIMINATING AGAINIST HONEST HARD WORKERS.
Linda
December 4, 2007, 4:20pm (report abuse)I certainly agree with most of the comments above. Why should we as retired civil service PAID into to our retirement and PAID into ss be penalized. We worked for this all our lives private sector can draw full pensions and full ss but not in civil service status. I can't even collect my husbands ss but someone who has never worked ,not paid into the system, if married to {someone who has} for less than year can collect this is not right. This system needs to be looked at . This is not a fair act at all espically to the working class.
Joanne
December 11, 2007, 10:46am (report abuse)I paid social security until my education agency was allowed to vote to go off social security, the non professionals voted to go off and that left us, the professionals without it also. Now I cannot collect benefits from my husband's social security. We were married 27 years and I did caregiving for him for 7 years and feel I deserve his social security. Also his first wife is drawing on his social security but I, who looked after him, am left out. Please pass this bill and give us our rightful social security.
Dianna Reusch
December 23, 2007, 11:03am (report abuse)Much of my teaching career was at a private post-secondary school in Texas. I now live in Illinois and will retire through the State University Retirement System with less than the time required for full retirement benefits. It only makes sense that I receive the SS to which I am entitled to offset the less-than-full retirement through SURS.
Bill Chenoweth
December 25, 2007, 10:26pm (report abuse)I have read every one of these. While I don't mind saying it, you have thank the greatest Republican that ever lived for this one, at least that is what the Republicans seem to say and think. Who was that you might ask? Ronald Regan, the man who hated the civil service and one who hired WR Grace to help him do this.
Bill Chenoweth
December 25, 2007, 10:40pm (report abuse)Sorry,
I am so upset by this, I have to keep on adding to it. I listen to the all of the current candidates hoping to hear something positive about the Fairness Act, but nothing do I hear about this. Wouldn't be great to hear someone who is already on the scene in DC say and then do something positive about this, i.e., other than just signing up for it so that they can say that they are a co-signer.
Gary C
December 27, 2007, 8:57pm (report abuse)I need to know where presidential candidates stand on this issue!
Pat Woodward
December 28, 2007, 2:38pm (report abuse)WEP struck me by surprise when I retired. I had worked seven years as a teacher and 24 years for the State of California under Social Security. When I retired I applied for pensions from the Retired Teachers, from the State and from Social Security. My work under Social Security made me eligible for about $1200 per month from Social Security. But to my shock and dismay, the fact that I applied for the teacher’s pension, caused me to be penalized $300 and receive only $900 from Social Security. I can understand not receiving Social Security credit for the years when I taught and did not pay into the system, but to take money from me that I am entitled to due to my other work boggles my mind. I would have received the whole amount from Social Security if I had laid around the house for those seven years, but silly me, I taught science and math to teenagers instead, so that is why it is costing me $300 per month for the rest of my life.
James III
December 29, 2007, 10:46am (report abuse)It's time for action ! You've read
all the "horror stories" about good
solid American citizens getting
screwed out of their "fully earned"
monthly Social Security benefit due
to GPO / WEP.
Nothing will change until "WE" change the make up of the Senate.
We do not have enought Democratic
seats to reach the "super majority"
of 60 votes to pass important
legislation. The Republicans blocked S-Chip Health care for
improvished kids ! They have no
soul !
Go to Moveon.org and click on
"end the Bush era 2008". Pledge
some money to get a Democratic
Senate in January 2009 to insure
passage of legislation to repeal
GPO /WEP. I have pledged $ 25.00
a month thru Oct 2009!
Vietnam Vet 67 - 68
Joeisme
December 29, 2007, 4:26pm (report abuse)And so my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you - ask what you can do for your country.
The WEP was passed for the greater good of the country. My Social Security is decreased as a result of my years in government service where I did not contribut to SS but to a pension plan. I accept it as my patriotic duty. Of course, if it gets eliminated I will be happy to accept the extra money.
Hal Kershner
January 8, 2008, 1:56pm (report abuse)Why is it that my neighbor who just retired from the sheet metal trade gets to collect his full social security AND his Union Pension? Isn't that a windfall too??? So why are civil servants being penalized and singled out?? I have no idea. As a firefighter from a major city, in retirement I would have to live on 1/4 of my retired pension amount since I lost the other 1/4 in a divorce. My quarter pension plus the penalized amount of social security not only would put me in the poverty zone, but would also qualify me for food stamps. Unless we get a democratic president, I think this bill will die and never be signed by President Bush or a new Republican president.
R & K [01/08/2008]
January 8, 2008, 2:05pm (report abuse)The House Ways and Means’ Subcommittee on Social Security will hold a hearing on the GPO/WEP and other Social Security issues on Wednesday, January 16, at 10 a.m., at the Longworth House Office Building, room 1100.
MORE AS I GET IT!
Douglas Silva
January 15, 2008, 1:47pm (report abuse)This bill brings fareness to all of us who have paid into social security for many years. Well over the time proposed for illegals. Please return our money to us to cope with the raising cost of living. Why am I being punished for serving in law enforcement.
Texas Educator
January 15, 2008, 9:13pm (report abuse)I worked for 15 years in the private sector, paying into social security, then I was a stay at home mom for 10 years. I have taught for 17 years now paying into my state retirement fund, but not SS. If I had not taught I would be eligible for benefits from both my husband's SS and my own. My husband is disabled and 12 years older than I. I will probably be alone for the last 20 years of my life, trying to live only on a small teacher retirement check and NO survivors benefits. I have let my children know to NEVER become a school teacher - both the state and our federal government has no respect for educators.
willis
January 16, 2008, 4:03pm (report abuse)why can't those of us in affected states file a class action suit against the state government? Surely there's a provision for a state's interference in the distribution of federal funds....any attorney's out there??
R & K [01/19/2008]
January 19, 2008, 12:40pm (report abuse)Folks, you might serve yourself a lot better by going to > and providing a submission for the record.
R&K, again
January 19, 2008, 12:45pm (report abuse)The link got striped out. Cut and paste this into your browser. http://waysandmeans.house.gov/hearings.asp?formmode=detail&hearing=603&comm...
... and again
January 19, 2008, 1:51pm (report abuse)That may not work, either. If your interested - and you should be - "Google" House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Social Security. Go to Committee Hearings and select 110th Congress. Then open the 1-16-2008 Hearing.
James III
January 20, 2008, 9:51pm (report abuse)A point " to ponder". Just remember
there are thousands of baby boomers
turning "62 years old this year!"
Boomers were born between 1946 - 1964 and the first group ( 1946)
many of whom have trotted into their local Social Security office
( in the 14-15 affected GPO /WEP
states) only to be informed that
they are getting screwed out of
their "FULLY EARNED" soc. sec.
benefits. Many will be hitting this
website to complain. Complaining
will dissipate "with the wind!"
Get involved ! Follow the suggestions of Larry and Karen and
others! Rattle your Senator or
Rep/s office !!!! Power is in "OUR"
hands and VOTES !!!!
Mill
January 22, 2008, 3:49pm (report abuse)Hillary Clinton does NOT support the Social Security Fairness Act 2007.
suzie teacher
January 22, 2008, 8:55pm (report abuse)I really hope that somehow that Social Security can be given fairly to all of those who rightfully deserve it. If you paid into it, you should get your fair share out of it, and not just 40%!!! My husband and I both lose...that's 80%!
Monique Lexus
January 23, 2008, 3:08pm (report abuse)I worked in the private sector for 10 years before going into State of LA employment. I paid into the State Retirement System 2.5% of my salary and after 27 years I had to retire early and move to GA to take care of a sick immediate family member. I lost out on so much of my retirement monies due to this move and leaving state government. I get only $1,000 a month retirement before taxes/medical insurance. I have to work multiple full time jobs for the last 8 years paying into S/S. And now I am up the Dick's Creek without a paddle if I don't get a full amount of S/S that I would if I had worked 28 additional years compared to only 18 years with S/S. I will either live in a cardboard box under the Interstate or I will die at my desk. There is no justice for us who have given so much to governmental employment. "I want MY fair share" and to be treated as a human being who has supported the laws of the land.
wgg
January 23, 2008, 7:24pm (report abuse)Take action! Be heard! Go to this site which has email links to important Senators. Form letter available on site too. Email them all the form letter or personal letter in support of S. 206
http://peoria.k12.il.us/parta/legislation.htm#Legislative_Update
Dave R.
January 23, 2008, 8:40pm (report abuse)I am certainly glad that I was sufficiently forsighted, knowing my Government as I do, and knew full well that you would find a way to short me on my SS pension. While I could be enjoying the much better life that I so diligently worked for, earned and in my opinion deserve, I am surviving given that the recession does not last more than six months and no unexpected expenses develop. If not intelligent you are consistent.
John B.
January 24, 2008, 12:01pm (report abuse)Our legislators have dipped into the Social Security Trust Fund for numerous PET projects over the years. We're now paying the price as they try to slice-and-dice benefits to reduce outlays. Anyone who's paid in should receive their fair benefits regardless what they do in the workplace. Either repeal these onerous penalties or offer these folks a lump-sum rolled over into a ROTH IRA.
R&K 1/25/08 [aka:Richard & Karen]
January 25, 2008, 10:36pm (report abuse)Is this enough to motivate y'all to CALL, FAX, WRITE, and PESTER the LIVING C*** out of your legislators?
Read On: Senators Consider Rebates for Retirees
Friday, January 25, 2008 6:37 PM EST
The Associated Press
By ANDREW TAYLOR Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) — Retirees living off Social Security are frustrated that they won't get tax rebate checks through a bipartisan economic stimulus package before the House.
james prault
January 27, 2008, 11:10am (report abuse)Let's see about my "windfall". When I retired, my health ins. was $430 a month for myself and my wife. My pension has risen about 20% over the years. My health ins.has risen over 250% to close to $1,100 per month. What does my Illinois state teacher's pension have to do with the federal gov't social security program? It appears to me to mean that when our elected officials do not live up to their responsibilities, they attempt to fix it on our backs!
Mill
January 28, 2008, 1:35pm (report abuse)Hillary Clinton does NOT support the Social Security Fairness Act 2007 ... John Edwards and Obama Do support this act.
Julie
January 29, 2008, 7:00pm (report abuse)I was divorced at 55 (couldn't quite compete with a 38 year old). Picked myself up and got a job in municipal government. Just found out that because I get a pension from the government ( a few hundred dollars) my social security (well over $1,000) benefit is largely lost. Don't we want 55 year old women to pick themselves up? I'll have to work until I'm over 70 to equal what I lost.
Martha Blackwell
January 29, 2008, 10:07pm (report abuse)I'll be 80 years of age in April, 2008. I still teach part time at a Community College. My S S benefit is decimated by both the GPO and WEP because of my very small California Teacher's pension. cannot get my own or my spouse benefits.
I have written letters, sent e-mails, submitted my situation to all the Hearings, and signed every petition that has anything to do with these penalties. I'm wondering what it will take.
Senators Obama and Clinton have signed on as sponsors of S-206. One new sponsor was added to HR82 in January, so perhaps there is hope?
What is the matter with AARP? I have canceled my membership because they do not sponsor the repeal of these penalities. Mind boggling.
Geri Longfellow
January 30, 2008, 7:49am (report abuse)I do not understand how a country can penalize the working people and reward those who refuse to work and commit crimes. The working person should receive the reward they EARNED. Where does the money go that is denied to the working person. Our representatives should care for the working person.
Robert Barker / Barack Obama
February 1, 2008, 5:03pm (report abuse)Dear Robert: 6/5/2007
Thank you for contacting me with your opposition to the GPO/WEP.
S.206, the Social Security Fairness Act of 2007, would correct the inequities that the GPO/WEP creates for many Illinois retirees. I am pleased to inform you that I am a cosponsor of this legislation.
S. 206 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee. While I do not serve on that panel, I will urge my colleagues to consider this important legislation.
Robert, thank you once again for writing. Please stay in touch in the future.
Sincerely,
Barack Obama
United States Senator
Jane
February 3, 2008, 5:38pm (report abuse)I will be retiring in Sept 2008 from the Postal Service with 28 yr and 4 Months of service. I have 14 years in Social Security. I am entitled to this money. 30% is what I will receive, if lucky. Why are we paying a penalty for investing in the USA. The interested was paid on our money in Civil Service and in Social Security. I do not feel we should be classified as double dippers. Help pass this bill.