According to recent news reports, the Trump administration is currently pushing to enhance Social Security payments. Despite an unexpected attempt to stymie the effort by hard-right Freedom Caucus leaders, the House is poised to vote on a Social Security-related bill next week to ensure payouts for workers who are also eligible for other pensions. It’s a speedy turnaround to rescue the bipartisan effort to pass the deal during Congress’ lame-duck session following the elections. Learn more about what is happening here.
Some Social Security benefits will be expanded under the Trump administration
The bill to repeal the so-called government pension offset has gained pace in the House, with 300 lawmakers supporting it, including House Speaker Mike Johnson. According to the legislative summary, in many circumstances, widows, widowers, and spouses who also get government pensions have their Social Security income reduced as a result of the government pension offset. The bill would remove that clause, restoring full Social Security payments. The bill’s sponsors, Republican Representative Garrett Graves of Louisiana and Democratic Representative Abigail Spanberger of Virginia, used a discharge petition—a rarely effective procedure—to get the legislation passed.
Furthermore, to remove the bill from the committee and bring it to the floor for a vote, they needed only 218 signatures from House members. The action is frequently considered as insulting by House leaders, notably the majority leader and speaker, who control the agenda. However, Spanberger and Graves had nothing to lose by declining to seek reelection. Johnson also supported the bill before becoming speaker.
How did conservative politicians oppose it?
While most members of Congress were in their home states on Election Day, two conservative House Freedom Caucus leaders stepped in. During Tuesday’s regular pro forma session of the House, former chair Republicans Bob Goode (R-Va.) and Andy Harris (R-Md.) promptly tabled a portion of the measure. The Freedom Caucus frequently blocks new expenditures. According to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office, the bill would raise the national deficit by approximately $196 billion over ten years.
According to Graves, this is the amount Americans would lose if full Social Security benefits were reinstated. Although the conservatives did not change the bill text, they did modify its procedural rule when they tabulated it. The legislation is expected to be voted on in the House, maybe within the next week. However, passage will be more difficult, requiring a supermajority barrier rather than a simple majority as originally intended under the rule that the Freedom Caucus leaders rejected.
Which Americans would profit if the bill became law?
According to the summary, if passed, the law would abolish rules that reduce Social Security benefits for persons receiving other benefits, such as a state or local government pension. According to the paper, the plan also eliminates the so-called windfall elimination clause, which, in some cases, decreases Social Security payments for people who simultaneously get a disability benefit or pension from an employer who did not pay payroll taxes.
It is unclear whether the bill has enough support to pass the Senate after clearing the House. However, the House’s big margin indicates that support may be broad. After that, it would get at President Joe Biden’s desk. According to the summary, if passed into law, the changes will apply to payments payable after December 2023. As a result, Social Security beneficiaries should stay informed about this issue in order to determine whether or not they will be affected.
