An Examination of the WEP/GPO Elimination Dilemma - MarketWatch/Brenton Smith

One of the issues that surfaces repeatedly in Congress is the potential elimination of Social Security’s Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) rules, and the 117th Congress is currently examining H.R. 82 with this as its objective. The bill, titled “Social Security Fairness Act of 2021” was introduced last January, and has garnered bipartisan support from nearly 300 co-sponsors. It’s a simple bill, focused solely on eliminating these two provisions from title II of the Social Security Act. To read the text of the bill itself, click here.

On the surface, the intent of the bill seems innocuous, but closer examination reveals that there are other factors that should be considered along with the question of simply striking the provisions. Journalist Brenton Smith, in a MarketWatch post, takes a look at this issue from two key perspectives: Are WEP and GPO (in their current state) truly unfair, and what is the impact on Social Security’s steadily eroding financial picture. Read Smith’s post here.

AMAC and the AMAC Foundation have extensively researched the issue of WEP and the continuing calls for reform on the legislation. For background purposes, we note that in Social Security’s early years, Federal,[1] State and Local Government (SLG) agency employers (thus their employees) could choose not to participate in nor contribute to the Federal Social Security program. Federal and SLG agency employers so choosing provided enhanced pension benefits for employees which, in effect, offset the loss of future Social Security benefits resulting from not contributing to Social Security. But many SLG employees also worked in other jobs contributing to Social Security over their lifetime, thus entitling them to both Social Security benefits and an enhanced Federal or SLG pension. This was viewed as “double-dipping” because the SS benefit formula is weighted to provide a higher percentage of pre-retirement income replacement to lower income workers. Those with a “non-covered” SLG pension artificially appeared (to the SS benefit formula) as being lower-income workers, giving them an unfair advantage over others without a non-covered pension. This unfair advantage was viewed as a loophole, resulting in WEP being enacted in 1983 as one of many cost-saving elements in broader legislation which restored Social Security to solvency for decades.

The procedure to offset and reduce SS benefits for those with a non-covered pension was controversial even before WEP was enacted. One school of thought was that the WEP-PIA should be computed by using both covered and non-covered earnings, and then have the PIA reduced by the ratio of covered to non-covered earnings. This was known as the proportional formula. Other proposals favored a modified benefit formula that would change the first replacement percentage in the normal benefit formula for workers with a non-covered pension (i.e., change the percentage used for the first bend point). Ultimately, a comprise was reached which gave us the formula which still exists today – the 90% factor in the first bend point is reduced according to the number of years of substantial SS-covered earnings the person has, maximum reduction to 40%.

Needless to say, WEP has been unpopular since enacted in 1983. Over the years, many bills have been submitted in Congress to either eliminate WEP entirely or change (reform) the way the WEP-PIA is computed to make it less punitive. All recent reform bills offered a variation of the proportional formula, but those proposals result in sometimes worse WEP cuts than the current formula. In that case the reform bills propose remedy by supplementing some WEP SS benefits from the General Treasury. Interestingly, no reform (or WEP elimination) bill in Congress has every made it past being “referred to committee.” Most bills do acquire many co-sponsors, presumably to provide co-sponsoring Congressional Representatives with cover from irate WEP-affected constituents.

[1] Federal employees started contributing to Social Security under a different retirement plan called “FERS” in 1986. Only those Federal employees who retired under the previous “CSRS” plan are affected by WEP.

Notice: The links provided above connect readers to the full content of the referenced websites or articles. The URLs (internet addresses) for these links are valid on the posted date; cannot guarantee the duration of the links’ validity. Also, the opinions expressed in these postings are the viewpoints of the original source and are not explicitly endorsed by AMAC, Inc.; the AMAC Foundation, Inc.; or

Comments On This Topic

  1. A totally biased opinion or viewpoint.
    This Article has no basis nor fundamental right to tell us anything about the the SS benefits that are rightfully earned by the worker, whether it be denied by WEP OR GPO.

  2. Your article, as well as the one you comment on, misses the bigger problem: the Government Pension Offset! This provision eliminates ALL earned spousal or survivor benefits for more than half a million of those affected. 71% of those affected are women. There is no provision for consideration of the number of years one may have actually been a dependent homemaker–community volunteer, low paid assistant, babysitter, etc. The formula mandates a cut up to 40% of the total of earned retirement benefits: public pension plus earned spousal or survivor benefits. Many women, with their lower lifetime earnings, lose benefits from the Windfall Elimination Provision as well as losing all their spousal or survivor benefits. Please don’t ignore what happens to women with these offsets!

  3. This is Insane on The WEP/GPO HR82, This explains why this rip-off of OUR Social Security Benefits has gone on for so Long ….. The Washington Establishment Continues to accuse Poor Public Service Retirees of receiving a “Windfall” while the Majority of these Retirees are being Penalized into poverty, this is a perfect Case of Ignorance to this WEP/GPO LAW! This has to be stopped Now🛑 🛑 🛑Mr.Causey please do some honest research on this WEP/GPO HR82
    before misleading your readers of these unfair penalties which affect 2.8million Retirees which 98% only receive a pension of less than average $1500 per month, due to these misleading penalties most lose 1/2 to All of their Social Security Benefits! Please report the real injustice of this Bill! Thank You,
    Charlie Romero
    [email protected]

What's Your Opinion?

We welcome your comments. Join the discussion and let your voice be heard. All fields are required

Website by Geiger Computers