During ongoing discussions about Social Security reform, Congress is considering making a significant move by potentially eliminating two provisions that reduce benefits for Connecticut’s public service workers, including teachers, police officers, firefighters, and government employees.
The bipartisan legislation, spearheaded by Representatives Garret Graves (R-La.) and Abigail Spanberger (D-Va.), seeks to address benefit reductions for individuals who also receive non-Social Security pensions.
The provisions under consideration are the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO). WEP affects those who worked in positions where Social Security taxes were not paid, such as many public service jobs, but also contributed to Social Security through other means.
It can reduce the amount they receive from Social Security if they have less than 30 years of what is considered substantial earnings, which is set at $31,275 in 2024. WEP affects over 22,000 people in Connecticut alone, with the vast majority of them retired.
Some, including the Connecticut Education Association, believe that this reduction is unfair to teachers who, despite working a second job where Social Security taxes are collected, face a significant reduction in their benefits.
GPO also reduces spousal and survivor benefits by two-thirds if the beneficiary receives a government pension from work that is not covered by Social Security. Both of these provisions have been criticized for disproportionately affecting people in public service positions.
The proposed changes to Social Security
The proposed legislation, titled the “Social Security Fairness Act,” has received widespread support, with over 300 cosponsors, enough to pass the House of Representatives. However, the bill faces obstacles because Republican leadership is unlikely to advance it through regular procedures.
To address this, the bill’s sponsors are filing a discharge petition, which requires a floor vote if a majority of members sign on. Currently, the petition is several dozen signatures short of the necessary majority.
In a joint statement, Graves and Spanberger highlighted the unfairness of these provisions, saying, “For more than 40 years, millions of Americans who paid into Social Security during their careers have been stripped of their retirement benefits— retired police officers who began second careers after retiring from the force, retired teachers who took a summer job, retired federal employees who spent a portion of their careers in the private sector, retired firefighters.
While the bill is widely supported, including by the majority of Connecticut’s congressional delegation, one notable exception is Representative John Larson (D-1st District). Larson, who has made Social Security a top priority during his time in Congress, believes that any changes must be financially sustainable and not come at the expense of other beneficiaries.
He advocates for reforms that do not jeopardize the program’s long-term viability, particularly for those who rely on Social Security as their sole income source.
Larson supports repealing WEP and GPO, as evidenced by the inclusion of these provisions in his own bill, the “Social Security 2100 Act.” However, he insists that any repeal be funded, which his bill would do by raising the Social Security taxable earnings cap.
“If an item is not paid for, that impacts the Trust Fund directly, and that’s my concern,” says Larson. “We’re on the same page in terms of our goal and acknowledging that [WEP and GPO] are bad policies that need to be changed. I do not blame them for wanting to move this forward.
[These workers] have sustained injuries over time. It appears that this could be an opportunity for them. The central issue here is that this has harmed teachers, firefighters, police, and municipal workers.”
Despite Larson’s caution, there is significant support for the discharge petition. Other Connecticut representatives, such as Joe Courtney (D-2nd District), Rosa DeLauro (D-3rd District), and Jahana Hayes (D-5th District), have already signed on.
Jim Himes (D-4th District) has also expressed his willingness to support the petition. Hayes stated, “Those who devote their lives to public service deserve to retire with dignity and their well-earned benefits. I’ve long supported efforts to repeal these harmful provisions.”
In addition to the House bill, there is a Senate version with bipartisan support that could overturn a filibuster. Connecticut Senators Richard Blumenthal and Chris Murphy have both co-sponsored this legislation.
According to Social Security data from December 2022, approximately 708,000 Connecticut residents, or roughly 20% of the state’s population, receive Social Security benefits. The vast majority of these recipients are retired workers, while others receive disability or survivor benefits.
Larson continues to advocate for broad reforms to ensure the program’s long-term financial viability. His “Social Security 2100 Act,” which is supported by Blumenthal’s companion bill in the Senate, calls for a 2% benefit increase across the board, the first in over 50 years, as well as adjustments to cost-of-living calculations to account for current inflation.
The plan also includes provisions to raise payroll taxes for higher earners, such as applying payroll taxes to wages exceeding $400,000.
Without Larson’s proposed funding mechanisms, some experts and lawmakers warn about the financial consequences of eliminating WEP and GPO. According to estimates, doing so will cost nearly $196 billion over the next decade.
Some argue for more targeted changes, such as updates to the formula used to calculate benefits for workers who did not contribute to Social Security throughout their careers, rather than outright repeal.