Have both parties in Congress just performed a coup de grâce on social security?
To prep for this article, please refer to the linked illustration of the real-time US debt clock.
Now keep that information in mind as you read this:
The Senate broadly approved a measure expanding Social Security payments to millions of certain public sector workers, sending the measure to President Joe Biden for his signature.
The vote on the Social Security Fairness Act was 76-20. It previously passed the House in an overwhelming bipartisan vote of 327-75 in November after rank-and-file lawmakers used a procedural measure, known as a discharge petition, to force a floor vote without House GOP leaders’ blessing.
“We will vote on taking up the Social Security Fairness Act to repeal flawed policies that eat away at the benefits of those who’ve worked as teachers, firefighters, postal workers, or public sector workers,” Majority Leader Chuck Schumer said ahead of the vote.
If signed into law, the measure will expand Social Security benefits to public sector workers who also collect pensions.
According to the Congressional Budget Office, the measure will cost more than $190 billion over the next decade and means the Social Security trust fund will “be exhausted roughly half a year earlier than it would be under current law.” [….]
If you think back to what you saw on the debt clock page, we already don’t have any money. And here we’ve got our elected officials ready to give $190 billion to a bunch of government workers who didn’t pay into social security in the first place. (They already have taxpayer-funded pensions.)
Our national debt is already equal to 136.48 percent of the total value of our economy. Social security itself – as is – is expected to run out of money in 2034. (That will be here before you know it.)
Looking at the vote totals, it’s clear that roughly half of the US Senate Republicans and a significant number of US House Republicans joined the Democrats in this fiasco. There is no happy ending for you when you spend more money without cutting any existing expenses. Try that with your own personal budget sometime. See how *well* that works.
Here is how the Congressional Research Service – Congress’s in-house source of info — described this legislative maneuver:
[…] The program’s income and outgo are accounted for with the
Social Security trust funds. They represent funds dedicated
to pay current and future Social Security benefits. In 2022,
the program had total income of $1.22 trillion (94.6% from
dedicated tax revenues), total expenditures of $1.24 trillion
(99.0% for benefit payments), and trust fund reserves of
$2.83 trillion (U.S. Treasury securities) available for future
program spending. Under the 2023 intermediate
assumptions, the Social Security Board of Trustees project,
with these asset reserves, the trust funds to remain “solvent”
until 2034 (the 2023 intermediate assumptions reflect the
trustees’ understanding of Social Security at the start of
2023). That is, until 2034, the trust funds are projected to be
able to pay full benefits scheduled under current law on a
timely basis. In 2034, however, the trust fund reserves are
projected to be depleted. While the program would continue
to operate with scheduled tax revenues, those revenues are
projected to cover about three-fourths of scheduled benefits
through the end of the projection period (2097). It is unclear
how the U.S. Treasury would handle the payment of
scheduled benefits under such a scenario. […]
If only these people were motivated as much by saving the country as they are by getting reelected. Just look at the debt piling up and all of the new spending like this being introduced. By mindlessly reelecting these people over and over, we’ve basically asked for this.
Soon, all it will take to collapse our economy will be some major world economic players deciding to no longer use the US dollar in their international trade, or some creditors calling in their debts. Sadly, those scenarios are not as far-fetched as you might think.
I cannot answer for firefighters but I do know about this. My husband worked in the private sector since he was 16 and began working for the Dept of the Navy as a civilian where he was covered by a government pension. Note during his 37 year employment as a civilian he paid no FICA taxes but paid into a pension program that the government matched. About 1984 the government changed how civilian employees were paid. They paid into the social security system, matched by the government and also had the advantage of paying into the Government IRA type retirement savings, which if the employee elected to go into this plan the government matched up to 5%, I believe, of what the employee contributed.
My husband stayed in the original plan, knowing that he would lose 2/3″s of his SS payment at retirement (WEP) even though he and his private sector employers paid into the system. In 1984 Postal workers and civilian workers with the US Government began paying into the Social Security system. You could say that this move helped to keep the system going a little while longer with an influx of income into the system.
My husband will only be paid the value of his and his employers’ contributions that were paid in for over 14 years with this change. He lost $587 a month due to the WEP, and I do not know what he will get now. But he paid it in and he earned it. And any public servant who gets Social Security will still need to have worked and received the 40 quarters of credit, which means they and their employers paid into the Social Security System.
Now, Social Security needs to addressed. The age for benefits needs to be raised. People are living longer.
Get a divorce and die – BOTH your first and second wives (if they meet the # of years married) can collect your FULL social security benefit.
But bring up anything about Social Security and this article is what you get. It has taken over 30 years to get the
“Windfall Elimination” and the “Government Pension Offset” eliminated because there is such an uproar from each party if someone tried to improve it. The reason it is in bad shape is because it has evolved from what it started out as (probably to get votes) and now with fewer workers paying in the bill is coming due.
Question? Wouldn’t it be “fairer” to penalize the ones who can afford it, for instance people with incomes above a certain level, vs those least able to afford it, our public service workers? such as a sliding scale of benefits if you earn over $1,000,000 a year?
Why not beat the drum for some critical needed changes without the sky is falling prelude.