By Maya C. Miller
Early Saturday, the Senate passed bipartisan legislation that would grant full Social Security benefits to a group of public sector retirees currently receiving them at a diminished level, forwarding the bill to President Joe Biden.
The vote to approve the measure was overwhelmingly in favor at 76-20, indicating strong support for a move to enable around 2.8 million public pension recipients — including teachers, firefighters, and police officers — to receive Social Security benefits equivalent to those of other beneficiaries.
The House had previously passed the bill with a significant margin of 327-75 last month after a bipartisan coalition of lawmakers pushed it to the floor, and President-elect Donald Trump has recently expressed his support for it.
The swift and decisive endorsement of the legislation, which carries a projected cost of almost $196 billion over the next ten years, is remarkable given the current lengthy standoff in Congress regarding spending and debt, where Republicans are advocating severe budget cuts and members from both parties are frequently voicing concerns about the growing national debt.
The bill abolishes two provisions established decades ago aimed at bolstering Social Security’s sustainability. Projections indicate that the Social Security fund will deplete its resources by 2038 and, if no intervention occurs before then, beneficiaries would face a 27% reduction in their benefits. The enactment of this bill accelerates that timeline by six months.
Twenty-seven Republicans collaborated with Democrats to support the measure.
The two provisions aimed to prevent what is termed “double dipping” regarding retirement benefits for certain public employees and their family members.
This legislation significantly impacts two demographics. The first includes public employees with pensions exempt from Social Security payroll taxes, who have also worked for at least a decade in jobs requiring contributions to the system. These individuals appear in the Social Security records as having earned much less over their careers than they did in reality, leading to them receiving a retirement benefit that is disproportionately larger due to how the program compensates low earners. The second group consists of individuals receiving public pensions who also qualify for Social Security survivor benefits following the death of a spouse or family member.
Under present law, both groups experience a decrease in their benefits. The forthcoming legislation would permit them to receive the complete amount.
“We have labored for decades to pass this legislation, and tonight represents a triumph for all the public servants who will at last obtain the Social Security they have rightfully earned,” expressed Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, a co-sponsor of the bill. This legislation signifies Brown’s concluding legislative victory after he endured a challenging and costly reelection campaign last month.
“This evening, Congress has guaranteed that police officers, firefighters, teachers, and public servants throughout Ohio will be able to retire with the Social Security they have diligently contributed to,” he stated.
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, a primary advocate for the legislation, classified the issue as a “long overdue” question of equity impacting teachers, firefighters, police officers, and some federal employees hired prior to 1984 when the federal pension framework was integrated into the Social Security system.
During a floor address Wednesday, Collins referenced a constituent, a retired female educator who had to resume working at the age of 72 following her husband’s passing to achieve financial stability. The woman’s husband had served in the Navy and contributed to Social Security for 40 years, but because she draws a public pension from the education system, her Social Security spousal benefits were slashed by two-thirds.
“This constitutes an unjust, inequitable penalty,” Collins claimed. Public sector employees currently facing penalties, she asserted, “have earned these benefits.”
For many years, public sector retirees and their supporters on Capitol Hill across party lines have been advocating for this measure. Recently, it has advanced swiftly through Congress, circumventing the standard committee procedures after advocates in the House gathered 218 signatures on a “discharge petition” to compel its consideration. Senate leadership also bypassed committee review.
Nonetheless, it encountered significant opposition in the Senate from fiscal conservatives. Several senators, predominantly Republicans, cautioned that the bill could ignite a cascade of unforeseen ramifications by abolishing the two provisions.
“We all acknowledge that the current situation is unjust, penalizing millions of hardworking Americans,” stated Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia, an independent who criticized the federal debt. “However, we also bear the responsibility to uphold our commitments to ensure Social Security remains available for those who have contributed to it and for future generations.”
Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., contended that a bill impacting the financial integrity of Social Security warranted careful consideration rather than being rushed through without thorough discussion at year-end. He emphasized that the nearly $200 billion deficit for the trust fund would exacerbate the more extensive issue of Social Security’s stability.
“It is crucial we address this correctly and muster the fortitude to reform Social Security in the coming years,” he remarked.
Other Republicans argued the legislation rectified a long-standing issue that should have been resolved much earlier.
“I’m just relieved that we are finally completing this task,” declared Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Okla., a close ally of Trump. “This should have been settled years ago.”
Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., revealed he has advocated for this issue in Congress for 30 years, consistently hearing lawmakers assure, “We’ll tackle it next year.”
“They never have,” Kennedy expressed in a Wednesday interview. “People deserve to receive every dollar they earn, and according to existing law, they are not.”
