Home | GPO and WEP | EYE OPENERS
Take Action Now | Petition | Newsletters
MEMBERS OF CONGRESS REPRESENTING OHIO RESIDENTS
WHO HAVE NOT
Still On The Fence No – HR 594____
Steve Chabot, R Patrick Tiberi, R
Michael Turner, R Michael Oxley, R
Deborah Pryce, R John Boehner, R
The eight Republican Members of Congress from OHIO listed above have not acknowledged the absolute need to repeal both the GPO and WEP by cosponsoring HR 594. We want to hear and should expect to hear from our elected representatives stating exactly what their position is on this critical legislation. Representatives John Boehner, Ralph Regula, Patrick Tiberi, and Michael Oxley have expressed their opinion in not supporting repeal of GPO and WEP. If that has changed we would definitely like to know that fact.
In the past some have said it is a “cost” issue and the government cannot afford to repeal GPO and WEP. We now know that is not true, especially when you look at “pork” legislation and how seven of the above representatives voted for HR 8, (Rep Tiberi did not vote). Other representatives claim it is a “dual entitlement” issue. They confuse “dependency” with “dual entitlement”. GPO is not a “dual entitlement” issue. Still others want to hold off any changes to Social Security until Congress conducts a comprehensive review of the entire program. Now that will take forever. We endorse legislation to fix the broken parks, one part at time, the sooner the better. That is the only way to deal with each part of the program in a rational manner.
An honest question deserves an honest answer. Will you cosponsor HR 594?
We attempted to contact each of the eight Members of Congress, or their legislative aide on August 20, 2003 for an update on their position on HR 594. The above list remains unchanged.
How many of you have had a face-to-face contact or telephone discussion with your Representative on a legislative matter? They were elected to represent you and your views in Washington D.C. How do they know your opinion if you never spoke with them? If you don’t know their position on a specific piece of legislation, ie HR 594, how can you expect them to represent you? Call their local or DC office and ask for a direct answer. A positive or a negative answer is much better than the typical “I will keep your views in mind.” The question remains, will you cosponsor HR 594?
Call Rep. Shaw at 1-800-839-5276. Also write, call, or fax him at the following address while he is Florida.
Representative E. Clay Shaw, Jr.
1512 E. Broward Blvd. #101
Fax: (954)768-0511
A True Leader Faces the Issues and Does Not Wait Until After the 2004 ELECTIONS.
“The chairmen of the 13 subcommittees in the House Appropriations Committee shape the federal government’s 13 major spending bills. They can fund - or kill - pet projects of constituent’s contributors and colleagues. They have so much clout they are called The Cardinals.” Source: Cincinnati Enquirer 12-4-02
Rep. Jefferson introduced GPO bill March 1997, hearing June 2000, ended 2002 with 289 cosponsors.
Rep. Frank introduced WEP bill on September 25, 1997 no hearing, ended 2002 with 232 cosponsors.
Rep. Sandlin introduced bill repeal WEP Nov.13, 1997 no hearing, ended 2002 with 149 cosponsors.
Reps. McKeon/Berman introduced repeal bill July 2001 no hearing, ended year with 189 cosponsors.
In 1977 our legislature looked at the Social Security entitlements of a working couple with one covered by Social Security and one not covered by Social Security and determined that the spousal benefit to a spouse retiring with a public pension would constitute “dual entitlements”. This is flawed logic. Payments were made by individuals into two totally separate retirement accounts with the expectation of full benefits upon retirement. The spousal benefit for the widow(er) in this instance is a true dependency issue, not a dual entitlement issue. However, because of a public pension our legislators felt that a spouse (widow) should not receive a full spousal benefit plus a public pension no matter how meager. Many legislators must have accepted this flawed logic, or were totally ignorant of the full consequences, because the Government Pension Offset (GPO) became law.
Under the Government Pension Offset, dual entitlement is a term used by Social Security to define a situation where both spouses are eligible for Social Security benefits due to their own work record, and a spouse is entitled to the greater of his or her own Social Security benefit or their spouses’, whichever benefit is greater. Thus, two people who work covered by Social Security will receive two benefits, not three, since one person is not entitled to Social Security dual entitlements. Social Security does not look at other forms of retirement investments as a limiting element nor as a dual entitlement when calculating the amount of the benefit. A company pension, 401(k), IRA, Roth IRA, etc. are not considered. Therefore, when a couple retires they would receive two Social Security checks plus any number of other retirement checks with no strings attached. No one can possibly find fault with this.
In the case of one working adult, a spouse will receive a 50% spousal benefit and a 100% benefit upon the death of the working spouse. This is seen as a dependency situation; the non-working wife was dependant upon the wages and retirement of her husband. One could argue that the non-working spouse receiving 50% of her husband’s benefit is, in fact, receiving a gift from Social Security for not working. The logic for a 150% benefit to a single working couple is lost in this modern era, especially when a Social Security benefit is reduced by GPO only because a spouse has a certain type of retirement package.
In the intervening years it has become clear to a majority of legislators that there are hundreds of thousands of unintended victims of the GPO and that the law must now be repealed. Tens of thousands of widow(er)’s continue to work because retirement with a public pension would mean the end to the spousal benefit. In many cases this would place the retiree at financial risk. Other widow(er)’s already at financial risk have to choose between food, medicine, and shelter because of the lost benefits due to the GPO.
As noted above, “dual entitlements” should never come into play under GPO. SSA is using an unrelated pension fund to reduce benefits for a single retiree. The use of this argument by Congress and the SSA is a gross misrepresentation of the facts and a misnomer.
In conclusion, the “dual entitlement” argument offered by Congress and Social Security is without fact or basis and has no place in defending the continuation of the GPO. In fact, the GPO harms the very people Social Security dependency benefits were meant to help.
In our July 22, 2003 Newsletter we quoted a Q & A “How the Wife’s Benefits Are Calculated. As of December 2002, approximately 176,000 beneficiaries have their monthly SS fully or partially offset due to receipt of a government pension -- 75% are in full offset, 25% in partial offset.” The correct number should have read, 376,000, we apologize for the typo. We might also add that as of December 2002, the WEP reduced the Social Security benefits of about 635,000 retired and disable workers. Of those affected, 66 percent are men and 34 percent are women. That’s correct! Disabled workers fall under WEP.
Source; SSA e-mail May 6, 2003
Following receipt of the “memo” from Manley Burke we asked a number of people and organizations for a review of the “memo”. We have received a number of replies, both from individuals and organizations, written and verbal. The general consensus from these responses is that both GPO and WEP have been litigated and that the courts have found that the laws are legitimate governmental actions and that there is very little likelihood that a court could rule in favor of the laws being unconstitutional. No decision yet.
Litigation remains a dim possibility and our elected Members of Congress may not get a chance to vote on HR 594 or S 349 in our lifetime. Where do we go? We can either give up, (now wouldn’t Rep. Shaw like that), or we could redouble our efforts to force Rep. Shaw to bring HR 594 to the floor of the House for a vote. Call Rep. Shaw at 1-800-839-5276. Also write, call, or fax him at the following address while he is Florida.
Many states, although Ohio is not one of them, exempt all or part of government retirement payments from state income taxes. Ohio is trying to pass HB 213 and SB 22 to exempt up to $10,000 from the Ohio income tax for state or federal government, or military, retirement benefits ( PERS, STRS and SERS included). Please contact your state legislator in the Ohio House and Ohio Senate and request support and passage of HB 213 and SB 22.
The July 2003 Newsletter was mailed to 430 people at a total cost of $265.00 or about $.62 per Newsletter. The total cost included reproduction, folding, tabs, and postage. If we mail 12 Newsletters to you the total cost per individual is $7.20. Since the cost to send the same Newsletter by e-mail is zero, almost all our expenses are directed to the regular mail sent by the U.S. Postal Service.
If you have been receiving the Newsletter on a regular basis and want to continue to receive it we would very much appreciate a small donation to cover the cost of your name and address and the associated Newsletter costs. A donation of $10.00 would be welcome. If you are currently in a financial bind, probable due to GPO or WEP please don’t feel compelled to send any donations. If you want us to stop sending the Newsletter let us know your desire to have your name removed. Also, if you have recently obtained an e-mail address and want the Newsletter sent by e-mail to that location we will add that to our computer list and discontinue the regular mail. If you send us your new e-mail address please be sure to include your name and current mailing address.
Home | GPO and WEP | EYE OPENERS