I’m here to visit with my colleagues about the Social Security bill that’s before the Senate.
But before I do that, I’d like to give my point of view from past shutdowns of the federal government about why the shutdown of the government is a bad idea.
Usually, people approach shutting the government down because they’ve got some big scheme they want to accomplish.
They’ll try to accomplish it during the negotiations to open the government or accomplish it from the threat of shutting down the government.
What I have found, in past instances when that’s been tried, you shut the government down, you open the government up, and that member, or members, have not accomplished the goal they wanted to accomplish.
It costs money to shut the government down.
It costs money during this week to get ready to shut the government down.
Then after a period of time, after a day, or at the most 35 days about six or seven years ago, the government opens up, and it costs money to open the government up.
The government is supposed to be a service for the American people.
You can’t serve the American people when the government isn’t operating.
I hope that something can be accomplished today or tomorrow, so the government stays open.
Now to the Social Security Trust Fund.
That fund is speeding toward insolvency.
Come 2033, seniors will automatically see their retirement benefits cut 25 percent absent congressional action.
Congress should be working toward a consensus on legislation to ensure this never happens.
Instead, we’re on the cusp of enacting significant changes to Social Security that will result in larger cuts that would normally happen in 2033, but now happen sooner.
If the bill before us is enacted, a typical senior would see their benefits cut by an additional $4,000 – and six months earlier than that date that’s predicted now to be the year 2033.
That’s quite the stocking stuffer for 50 million seniors that depend on Social Security, some of whom have no other income, like from pensions for example.?
While the vast majority of seniors stand to receive a lump of coal for Christmas, a select few state and local government employees will be gifted a boost in their benefits.
In Iowa, only one percent of retirees would benefit, while everyone else would get less.?
That doesn’t sound fair to me.
Now don’t get me wrong, I have great respect for government workers in Iowa.
This includes police officers and firefighters to whom we owe our gratitude.
Congress should work to address the inequities that the bill before us is trying to solve.
Let’s be crystal clear: this bill would increase unfairness in how Social Security benefits are calculated.
The Social Security Windfall Elimination Provision, WEP as it’s called around here, which this bill repeals, addresses a real issue that exists in how the Social Security benefit formula works, or more, how it fails to work, when a government employee spends most of their career in non-Social Security covered positions.
The Social Security benefit formula is designed to be progressive.
That is, it provides a low-income worker a more generous benefit relative to their contributions compared to a middle-class income individual.
As a result, absent Windfall Elimination Provision, senior level government employees who spend most of their career not contributing to Social Security, while also earning a high salary and a government pension, would receive a generous Social Security benefit by working as few as ten years covered by Social Security.
The Social Security formula treats those ten years as if this was their only income during their working life, and therefore provides an unfair bonus.
That’s simply not fair to the average private sector worker who spends their entire career paying Social Security taxes, earning similar or lower pay than the government workers, but receives less Social Security benefit per dollar paid in.
You don’t have to take this senator’s word for it.
AARP, the premier voice for senior citizens, says as much on its website noting that, “Repealing the WEP without replacing it would allow individuals to inaccurately receive a higher Social Security benefit than if they had worked their whole careers in jobs covered by Social Security.”
This unfairness doesn’t only exist between government workers and private sector workers.?
Most states have opted into Social Security for the vast majority of their workers.?
In these states, government employees and retirees covered by Social Security see no benefit under this bill.?
In Iowa, only 8 percent of government workers are not covered by Social Security. For some states, it’s fewer than 5 percent.
But, there happens to be a handful of states where 50 percent or more of their workers are exempt from Social Security and thus don’t pay into Social Security taxes.
For instance, the state of Massachusetts, it’s over 97 percent of their government employees.
Can you imagine that, liberal Massachusetts thinks their government employees are too good for Social Security???
It’s these states that will be the big winners under this bill.?
Effectively, states like Iowa, where the vast majority of government employees are covered by Social Security, are being asked to subsidize the retirement of government workers in Massachusetts, California and Colorado. States that largely chose to opt out of Social Security.
I’ve put forward a common sense and fiscally responsible amendment.
It would address the inequity that can arise due to how current law addresses non-covered Social Security employment, without the unfairness that would arise under the bill before us.
My amendment would pay for the repeal of the Windfall Elimination Provision and government pension offset, while also making Social Security fairer for everyone.
Under my amendment, if state and local employees not currently covered by Social Security voluntarily opt in to Social Security, these rules are repealed for current and future retirees of that state’s government pension system.?
Only current workers under 52, or with at least 10 years until retirement, would need to join Social Security.
This helps ensure such workers will work long enough to earn a Social Security benefit. They would also be able to get the benefit of the more generous social security formula.
The underlying bill would raid, from the Social Security Trust Fund, $200 billion.
In contrast, my amendment would increase Social Security’s solvency by $100 billion if all states took advantage of my proposal.
That’s a win-win for everyone.
Now I know this bill will probably be debated under no opportunity to offer my amendment.
Or offer an amendment by Senator Cruz of Texas, that would also be more fiscally responsible than the bill before us and not harm senior citizens by reducing their income from the Social Security Trust Fund six months sooner than otherwise.
I yield the floor.
-30-