Latest News
H.R. 82’s WEP-GPO Repeal – A Misguided Effort?
With the possibility of a floor vote on H.R. 82 (Social Security Fairness Act of 2023) before the end of the current congressional session, it’s crucial that the general issue of fairness be explored from a complete perspective. In a post this morning on heritage.org, Roe Institute Senior Research Fellow Rachel Greszler offers just such a perspective, stressing that repealing the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and Government Pension Offset (GPO) sections of current Social Security law would be ill-advised. Her informed opinion emphasizes that a total repeal of the provisions, rather than correcting the math, “would create an unequal benefit structure and hasten Social Security’s insolvency.”
Ms. Greszler offers background on the origin of the two rules and their intent to avoid situations where workers who spent time in both covered and noncovered employment–that is, jobs that either participated in Social Security or did not participate–would potentially receive benefits in a greater amount than appropriate. As she notes, when WEP and GPO were signed into law decades ago, the Social Security Administration did not have sufficient data to construct accurate formulas for the benefit adjustment. That data now exists and should serve as the basis for revisions to the formulas used to adjust benefits.
Read Ms. Greszler’s article in full here.
The Importance of Understanding WEP and GPO
As we reported on this website earlier this week, many legislative attempts have been made to fully repeal WEP and GPO, with no prior action taken. The issue is controversial, to be sure, and there are two sides to the argument. For this reason, and in response to many questions from readers, the AMAC Foundation has heavily researched the origin of these two troublesome provisions, concluding that the purpose behind their design is often not clearly understood, nor is the way the math works in support of the original purpose. The Foundation offered a publication (WEP and GPO: To Repeal or Not?) to help clarify the matter and conducted a public webinar presenting thoughts on the subject. A recording of the webinar can be viewed on the Foundation website here.
WEP GPO should be repealed in its entirety now.
The argument that Social Security is in danger is flawed. It’s a $15 Billion bloated agency with too many employees is contributor. The annual benefits budget of over $1 Trillion to include people that never worked in the US or live in another country is contributor. The International Totalization Agreements with 30 other countries allowing credit for time/quarters
From other countries is contributor big time.
The insidious WEP GPO is over 40 years old,
The time to kill this American hurting and hammering extra tax is now!
Mark,
Thanks you for your commentary on WEP and GPO. FYI, we have followed this issue for many years, and have thoroughly researched both the reasons for and affects of these provisions on Social Security benefits of certain public servants. As I’m sure you already know, there are two sides to this issue, and H.R. 82 (The Social Security Fairness Act) is only the latest of many attempts to repeal WEP and/or GPO. All previous attempts have suffered the same fate (not enacted) and, despite the visibility of the current attempt, H.R. 82 is likely to suffer the same outcome. While it’s true that the monetary impact of repeal would somewhat harm Social Security’s financial outlook, it is not true that operating costs of the SSA – less than 1/4th of 1% of revenue – are “bloated.” Indeed, the SSA suffers intense Congressional scrutiny of its operating expenses, usually leading to doing more with less, and resulting in numerous instances of poor customer service (we deal with these issues every day). it’s also not true that SS benefits go to “people who never worked in the US” – only legal U.S. residents and their dependents can collect Social Security. Also, even if someone uses a “totalization” agreement to get SS benefits, those benefits are still based only on their U.S. earned income. The totalization agreements also work both ways, ensuring the ability of U.S. businesses to employ foreign workers (who also pay U.S. Social Security FICA taxes). Thus these agreements tend to benefit SS solvency, rather than detract from it.
So, if your argument is that WEP and GPO should be repealed due to inherent inefficiency in other areas of Social Security, I’m afraid that is not a solid argument. The main issue with Social Security solvency is that increased life expectancy of beneficiaries now causes SS to pay S benefits for decades, from a system designed to pay benefits for just a few years. In reality, WEP affects only about 3% of all SS beneficiaries and GPO affects only about 1%, so the money to be saved by repealing these provisions isn’t the gating financial factor; the SS solvency issue is substantially more complex. And, the issue of fairness of WEP and GPO is one we’ve looked at very carefully. You may want to go to our AMAC Foundation website – http://www.amacfoundation.org – and check out the articles and videos on WEP and GPO for additional information.
In any case, we welcome and value your comments and feedback.
Regards,
Russell Gloor
Certified Social Security Advisor
The AMAC Foundation
I paid into Social Security my full share every week for well over 10 years; therefore I should receive my full benefit now that I have retired but I only receive about 1/2. The fact that I receive benefits from a private pension that I also paid into well AFTER paying into SS for more than the required 40 quarters should have nothing to do what I paid for in Social Security. especially when I see many people who claim to be disable working as roofers, painters and other very physical jobs for cash, while they didn’t contribute to Social Security at all or for the required 10 years. How is that fair in any universe? Everyone who is literally being robbed as I am should not only begin receiving what we paid for but also paid retroactively to the time we began receiving reduced benefits with interest but I doubt we will ever see anything at all before we die old, poor and cheated.
Jeffrey:
Thank you for your comment. As you are likely aware, and as we noted in response to several comments concerning the WEP/GPO issue, repeated legislative attempts have been made through the years to fully repeal both, with no prior action taken. The issue is controversial, to be sure, and I would ask you to consider that there are two sides to the general argument. In responding to many reader comments and inquiries on the issue, our staff has researched this topic heavily in an attempt to promote a full understanding of why these rules exist and, perhaps more importantly, how they actually work in practice. The Foundation authored a publication (“WEP and GPO: To Repeal or Not?”, which you can access on the AMAC.us website) to help clarify the matter and we conducted a public webinar presenting thoughts on the subject. A recording of the webinar can be viewed on the Foundation website’s Videos page.
I can’t respond to your comment on the suspected duplicity of individuals on Social Security’s Disability Insurance rolls. My advice would be to contact the Social Security Administration (SSA) directly if you have evidence of infractions. SSA has a webpage dedicated for this purpose. You can access it here: https://oig.ssa.gov/report/.
Again, thank you for taking the time to comment on this article. If you’d like to discuss the WEP/GPO matter further, please feel free to contact me through the AMAC Foundation office at 888-750-2622.
Gerry Hafer
Certified Social Security Advisor
The AMAC Foundation
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: The contents of this message, including any attachments, are confidential and are intended solely for the use of the person or entity to whom the message was addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this message, please be advised that any dissemination, distribution, forwarding, printing, copying, or use of the contents of this message, and any attached documentation, is strictly prohibited. If you received this message in error, please notify the sender. Please also permanently delete all copies of the original message and any attached documentation. The opinions and interpretations expressed in this message are the viewpoints of the message’s author, a trained advisor accredited under the National Social Security Advisors program of the National Social Security Association, LLC (NSSA). The author, the NSSA, and the AMAC Foundation are not affiliated with or endorsed by the United States Government, the Social Security Administration, or any other state agency.