Home | GPO and WEP | EYE OPENERS
Take Action Now | Petition | Newsletters
SEPTEMBER NEWSLETTER
Representative Michael Turner – 3rd District of Ohio
is the latest Ohio legislator to cosponsor HR 594.
Call his Wash. DC office and his Dayton, Ohio office and say “Thank you”.Use 1-800-839-5276 or 202-225-6465, 937-225-2843, 937-383-8931
HR 594 – 270 cosponsors S 349 – 25 cosponsors
We just received this e-mail from Sue Shaw, Penobscot, Maine. She and others have a good line into NEA and receive up-to-date information. Please call 1-800-839-5276 and request to speak with you Senator and Representative. Also call Rep. Shaw, Rep. Thomas, and Rep. Hastert.
The word coming down from the NEA and the Maine Education Association is that on Oct 1, the Lobby Day, phone lines were overloaded! What they are saying is that if you tried to get through and could not...please try again! Even now, almost a week later, it would still be of great help to call (or call again) and ask for support for HR594 and S349. We want these to pass AS WRITTEN!
The number to all congressional offices is: 1-800-839-5276
We have to realize that the powers that be are, in all likelihood, going to have to compromise....but we want to keep hammering on PASS AS WRITTEN! And we need to stress that BOTH of these laws are grossly unfair! Congress should not give relief to one group and not the other!
Sue
For the past three years we have visited legislators, made phone calls, sent letters, e-mails and faxes to our U.S. Representatives and Senators in the hope that something would be done to change or repeal both the GPO and WEP. This Newsletter has documented how the GPO and WEP laws are unfair to widows, widowers and public service retirees. In this Newsletter Eileen Ryan has outlined the issue of Social Security “overpayments” and how the law is applied. Overpayments are often the result of stupid errors made by Social Security staff and also the result of normal administrative procedures within Social Security. Her articles on Overpayment, Democracy in Congress, and No Cost to Repeal, follow this introduction and contains some specific contact information.
Although we all know that the GPO is unfair, discriminatory, and possibly unconstitutional and must be changed to reestablish justice for retired public employees, the most insidious element of the GPO is seen when a cost-of-living-adjustment (COLA) is reported that usually results in “overpayments”. How does that happen?
Whenever a government pension is adjusted due to a COLA, because of the GPO the retiree is required to notify the SSA of the COLA amount. The SSA manually calculates the 2/3rds offset and notifies the retiree of the benefit reduction; this can take up to three months. Immediately two things happen: first, the retiree is notified that he/she has been overpaid and must refund the money within 30 days and second, all future SSA benefits are reduced by 2/3rds of the COLA increase. The retiree is taxed on the new public pension amount but receives only a net 1/3rd increase. The SSA is the true beneficiary of the retiree’s COLA.
What can be done? The COLA s should be excludable from further GPO calculations. To continue the GPO in its current form is insidious and an insult to retirees. It has lasted this long because too few people knew how devastating it was and past efforts, although worthy and exhaustive, have proven to be ineffective.
The GPO by itself is bad enough and retirees never get over the lasting effects of the reduced benefits. But, the way Social Security treats the COLA is insidious because it has a more serious effect than is apparent. Once infected by this GPO/COLA disease it returns each year to inflict its’ toll of misery on public service retirees. It is like a Moray eel, once it bites you it never losses its’ grip.
YOU AND THE LAW - SOCIAL SECURITY TURNS BENEFITS
ON AND OFF
"Most people get their Social Security benefits without any problems. The
system works surprisingly well. But not perfect. Don't assume that the decisions
made by the Social Security Administration are always correct.
“Lets take a look at one recent Ohio case that illustrates some of the flaws in
the system. Sally, who asked that her real name not be used, paid into the
Social Security program throughout her working career. In May 1991 she visited
her local Social Security office to let them know that her retirement would
start Jan.1, 1992. She contacted them again near the end of 1991. But in
January 1992, to Sally's surprise she received no check. Sally contacted Social
Security and she was told to contact the Railroad Retirement Board because her
late husband had worked for the railroad. The Railroad Retirement Board sent
her back to Social Security. Sally made repeated calls to both offices, yet
February came and she still received no checks.
“She didn't get her first check from Social Security until the end of April
1992, and that only after contacting the offices of her U.S. Congressman and
Senators. Her Medicare coverage didn't begin until July six months overdue.
“Sally received a letter from Medicare saying she may be entitled to both
Social Security and railroad benefits, and in March 1993 she began receiving a
second monthly check one from railroad and one from Social Security, each in
different amounts. In April 1993, Sally received a letter from the Social
Security Administration saying she received a small overpayment but confirming
she was entitled to the two monthly checks.
“For three years Sally received both checks without problems. In March 1996,
she received a notice from Social Security again advising her of her entitlement
to both benefits. But shortly thereafter, Social Security sent Sally another
letter, this time telling her that she was only entitled to Social Security and
that she had been overpaid $35,095. Unfortunately, Sally didn't have that
money. Believing she was entitled to the checks sent to her she spent them.
“ As a "courtesy" Social Security decided simply to take Sally's future monthly
checks until the $35,095 had been repaid. This could have been a disaster,
because Sally needed that income to live on.
“Federal law prohibits the government from taking steps to recover an
overpayment, if two elements are satisfied: the recipient was without fault
and recovery would be "against equity and good conscience."
“At Sally's first appeal hearing, the administrative law judge determined that
Sally was at fault for receiving the overpayment. The judge indicated that
Sally should have known that she was not entitled to checks both from Social
Security and the railroad.
“At her next appeal, the U.S. District Court reversed and found that Sally was
without fault. Sally worked under Social Security, her late husband paid into
the railroad system and there was no reason for Sally to know she wasn't
entitled to checks. Infect letters from the government seemed to confirm that
Sally would be entitled to payments under both retirement programs.
“After years of fighting with Social Security, Sally finally won. But the
experience was a nightmare. The government makes mistakes. And when it does, it
can take all the security out of Social Security."
The above article was printed special in the Plain Dealer, Cleveland, Ohio in
the spring of 2003.
We hope the above information is helpful should you find yourself in a similar
situation. We realize everyone makes errors BUT if a Social Security worker
makes the mistake the retired senior should not be held responsible for any
overpayment.
SOCIAL SECURITY – OVERPAYMENT and the FEDERAL LAW
Almost from the beginning of the our endeavors to change or repeal the GPO/WEP we received letters describing the nightmare of receiving that dreaded letter from SS that starts out “We are writing to give you new information about the widow’s benefits which you receive on the Social Security record. In the rest of this letter we will tell you:
| How we paid you $ 00.000 too much in benefits and |
| What to do if you think we are wrong about the overpayment” |
This has been a sideline project for me and because of Arlene Gregerson, from Parma, Ohio who sent in an article “You and the Law” you will be given information that may help if that dreaded SS letter ever arrives. The article describes how Mr. Armond Budish with the law firm Budish & Solomon, LTD, in Pepper Pike, Ohio helped Sally when she was given misinformation and for three years received SS and a check from her husbands Railroad Retirement. Her “We are writing to tell you” letter stated she had been overpaid “$35,095. The article continues “As a courtesy” Social Security decided simply to take Sally’s future monthly checks until the $35,095 had been repaid. The following quote is from Diane Garro, Acting Deputy Commissioner for Legislation, Social Security, 2001. “We strive to process the reports we receive from beneficiaries as quickly as possible in order to minimize the amount of an overpayment. Sometimes these reports are delayed and as a result this increases the amount of the overpayment. We recognize how disruptive the repayment of an overpayment can be to beneficiaries and for that reason we work with each individual to develop an acceptable repayment schedule.”
Mr. Armond Budish, the lawyer who represented Sally was kind enough to provide us with the following information.
Federal law prohibits the government from taking steps to recover an overpayment if two elements are satisfied: the recipient was without fault and recovery would be “against equity and good conscience”.
The law is contained in, 20 CFR 404.506. CFR is the Code of Federal Regulations. Also 20 CFR 404.509, 510, and 512. Check the Social Security Handbook 1919, Underpayment and Overpayment. Call your main library and ask for the Government and Law department and give them the above information. Ask them to make copies for you and send them to the nearest library where you live. If you have a computer: 1. go to our web site www.dingomt.com/ssoffsetlaw/ 2. click on “Eye Openers”, 3. click on Social Security--Overpayment and the Federal Law. By clicking on the code numbers and the Social Security Handbook 1919 you will then have the legal information on this subject.
For your own protection when you report your cost of living to SS always ask the worker to sign your form, date it and stamp the office address. If you send in your information ask that the person who is recording the information to sign, date and stamp your form. Write your request on the form that has your cost of living information so there will be no doubt you made the request. I hope this information is helpful and again I want to thank Mr. Budish for his help.
It is ironic that Rep. E. Clay Shaw (R-FL) is the chairman of the Ways and Means subcommittee on Social Security, is from Florida, the State with one of the largest number of retirees. The irony is that his position allows him to control what bills will reach the House floor and what bills will never be allowed that DEMOCRACTIC process. Mr. Shaw has thwarted the passage of four bills described below.
On 12-13-01 Mr. Shaw introduced his bill H.R. 3497 with three cosponsors “SECTION 207 GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET REDUCED FROM TWO-THIRDS TO ONE-THIRD OF THE GOVERNMENT PENSION”. Rules to pass a bill suspended. Bill Failed
“On 5-14-02 Mr. Shaw introduced his bill H.R. 4069 at 4:19 pm. Mr. Shaw moved to suspend the rules and passed the bill as amended by 7:03 pm. Bill to improve fairness and eligibility requirements resulting in higher benefits, expanded eligibility for the elderly, disabled widows and divorced spouses, who are among the most likely to live in poverty”. It was no surprise Mr. Shaw excluded the retirees under the “offset/windfall law” many of whom face poverty and do not receive full benefits. We wonder how the retirees in his State of Florida feel? DISCRIMINATED PERHAPS?
THE PORTMAN-CARDIN PLAN
H.R.10 was introduced on March 14,2001 by Congressmen Rob Portman (R-Ohio) and Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) “Private pension plan including 401(k)s-are crucial to retirement security for millions of Americans. Pensions now pay almost $380 billion annually to workers--$63 billion more than retirement and survivor benefits paid from Social Security. Unfortunately only half of all private sector workers have any kind of pension-only 20% of small businesses offer retirement plans”.
UNFORTUNATELY GPO/WEP RETIREE NOT INCLUDED
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) Social Security reform. No action will be taken in Congress at least until 2005 because as Grassley says, “this is such a politically hot issues, and people aren’t convinced there’s a problem.” (AARP Bulletin March 2003) Obviously Mr. Grassley has not been paying attention to the millions of retired seniors losing their earned Social Security benefits. 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” 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, 1979 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.
When Congress passed the Government Pension Offset/Windfall Elimination Provision in 1977, they plunged a financial dagger into the retirement plan of every PUBLIC employee. The main concern of Congress has been the cost to repeal the law. “From 1964 to 2001 Congress borrowed $700 Billion from the Social Security surplus”. Congress borrows when a) the government has run a budget deficit, b) Social Security has run a surplus, and c) funds have been “borrowed” from Social Security to help make up all or part of the budget deficit”. Congressional Budget Office 12-11-02.
“The General Accounting Office has removed the Supplemental Security Income program from its list of government programs that show the greatest risk for waste, fraud, and abuse, known as the high-risk list.” The PUBLIC Worker paid Social Security for years and their husbands paid their entire lives. Conclusion no new monies are needed when the law is repealed BECAUSE the paid Social Security taxes should be in the fund waiting for the PUBLIC worker to claim upon retirement.
THE MORAL OF THE ABOVE COMMENTS Congress Needs to Leave the Social Security Surplus Alone and the GAO needs to investigate more waste in government agencies.
The loss of revenue in every state is substantial because of the “offset/windfall” The state of Ohio in 2002 lost $341.8 million. That amount was returned to Social Security then to Congress to spend.
The GPO/WEP cannot be repealed because of the cost yet Billions are found for pet pork projects. January 2003 spending bill “$1 million for untangling North Dakota’s traffic snarls, $15 million for
a pumping system to drain water from cotton cropland in the Mississippi Delta, $100,000 for the Alaska Sea Otter Commission, $200,000 to study sea food waste at the University of Alaska, $500,000 for an aquarium in Ketchilcan, $1 million for the Noxious Weed Management program at Montana State University, $1 million for a DNA grizzly bear sampling study in Montana.”
“July 2001 lawmakers found money to allow the Senate to spend $28.5 million on favorite projects and the House received $25.5 million for their favorite pork projects.”
October 2000 “$600 million for the desert turtle, $1.1 million to build an exhibit for “Sue” the Tyrannosaurus rex fossil at the Chicago Field Museum. The money flowed so freely that Derek Smith was able to win two water and a land project totaling $5 million for the Salt Lake City area –even though Mr. Smith is not yet in Congress.” “Federal payment errors wasted $19 billion, GAO report finds. More than half was Medicare mistakes.” Information from articles in the Cincinnati Enquirer.
Conclusion the billions in Pork disbursements made each year means other programs will be short changed. Do we conclude our politicians care more for the “desert turtle” or “Sue” or the Alaskan sea Otter or perhaps the DNA of the grizzly bear?
How can a legislator who takes the oath to represent his voters and protect their general welfare allow the SENIORS in his district to experience the financial nightmare of losing their “earned” Social Security? Where is the conscience of our elected officials? Why do they play games with the lives of a retired public worker? Where did they find the right to pass a law taking away the retirement money from a senior who earned that money during their lifetime? It’s just not right!!!
PLEASE NO SENIOR LEFT BEHIND Repeal GPO/WEP VOTE FOR McKeon H R 594
The Harsh Consequences of the GPO/WEP
The U.S.Constitution governs our nation. Article 1,section 8 “The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States, but all duties, imposts, and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States”. Can we interpret this to mean Congress cannot tax and discriminate against a certain class of people i.e. public employees, when private employees can receive both a pension and full Social Security? Are they invading “our general welfare” by imposing a “tax” that places many public service retirees at or below the poverty level?
The Windfall Elimination Provision penalizes a worker up to 60% of their Social Security. A retiree who paid Social Security for years expects to receive their earned benefits upon retirement. The Webster dictionary defines “windfall as an unexpected good fortunate” Clearly there is nothing unexpected after paying Social Security taxes for 16, 20 35, years.
The Government Pension Offset requires a retiree upon retirement to report to Social Security the amount of their State pension. Social Security then takes 2/3s of the pension and it is subtracted from the retiree’s earned Social Security benefits. Each year the state grants a cost of living increase BUT the retiree must report the increase to Social Security and again the 2/3s penalty is repeated. Is the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT crossing the line into the States rights? Our Answer is YES!
Eileen Ryan, September 2003
Home | GPO and WEP | EYE OPENERS