Home | GPO and WEP | Letter Campaign
Take Action Now | Petition | Contact Info | Newsletters
HR 664 Rep. Jefferson to amend GPO, 297 cosponsors.
· There are 16 Ohio cosponsors.
HR 848 Rep. Sandlin to repeal WEP, 149 cosponsors.
· There are eight Ohio cosponsors.
HR 1073 Rep. Frank to amend WEP, 232 cosponsors.
· There are nine Ohio cosponsors.
HR 2638 Reps. McKeon/Berman to repeal GPO & WEP, 179 cosponsors.
· There are six Ohio cosponsors.
S 611 Senator Mikulski to amend GPO, 36 cosponsors.
· Senators Voinovich and DeWine are cosponsors.
S 1523 Senator Feinstein to repeal GPO & WEP, 14 cosponsors.
· Senators Voinovich and DeWine ARE NOT cosponsors.
As we understand the process, getting cosponsors does not automatically place new legislation in line for a vote. When Members of Congress cosponsor legislation it indicates their individual support. It takes political power to move legislation out of Committee and to the floor for a vote. Without political support very little gets done.
Earlier this year we decided to place our efforts behind HR 2638 and S 1523; that legislation is designed to repeal both GPO and WEP. Please continue to call your Members of Congress to request their active support of this new legislation. Politics start with your phone call. Call each week – it really does work.
The House Ways and Means Committee, Subcommittee on Social Security on GPO and WEP held a public hearing on June 27, 2000. That was over two years ago and NOTHING has changed since. As a result I started to reread the testimony of Jane L. Ross, Deputy Commissioner for Policy and was startled to read her “Rationale for the GPO”. She states, “The GPO provision, enacted by Congress in 1977, is designed to replicate the dual-entitlement provision of the Social Security program…..” She goes on, “Under the dual entitlement provision, if a person is entitled to a larger Social Security benefit as a worker than as a spouse, no spouse’s benefit is payable because the person is not considered dependent on the other spouse. Similary, if the benefit payable as a spouse exceeds the worker’s benefit for that person on their own record, then the spouse’s benefit is offset by the amount of the worker’s benefit. As a result of the dual entitlement provision, … they receive the equivalent of the worker’s benefit or the spouse’s benefit, whichever is higher.”
The rationale for the dual entitlement seems valid in that a surviving spouse should not receive both Social Security benefits and thus receives only the larger of the two. When compared to the example of the GPO the surviving spouse has his or her Social Security benefit further reduced solely on the basis of a public service retirement. Being a totally unrelated situation, this is clearly comparing apples with oranges.
Mrs. Ross goes on to state, “Government pensions are, to a large extent, a substitute for Social Security benefits.” This does not seem to agree with form SSA-7005-SM-SI (1-2001) that states, “Social Security was not intended to be the sole source of income when you retire. You’ll also need a pension, savings or investments.” So how can our legislature justify reducing Social Security benefits based upon an independent pension, whether private of public? The arguments put forth by the SSA at the House Ways and Means Committee are indeed contradictory with other published statements of Social Security policy.
Private citizens in every walk of life pay into Social Security and they may also elect to pay into additional retirement pension funds without any potential for offsetting Social Security benefits. People are encouraged to contribute into IRA’s, 401(k), etc., it’s the smart thing to do. We question whether or not Mrs. Ross would see these financial programs as substitutions to Social Security benefits.
The total lack of fairness, understanding, and compassion by our Members of Congress is appalling. What they do understand is that their own retirement system is pure gold. It consists of a public pension, Social Security, and a Thrift Savings plan. That’s correct! Members of Congress have both a public pension and also pay into Social Security through FICA payroll deductions. We would like to know if our Members of Congress exempt themselves from the GPO and WEP?
OTHER LOOPHOLES
We recently reported on the Texas Loophole through which many teachers and staff are able to evade the effects of Social Security reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP). There are other examples of public service retirees that are also able to evade the heinous Social Security reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP). To the best of our knowledge the following examples are accurate.
· Retired military personnel receive BOTH a public pension and Social Security benefits without any reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP). Prior to January 1, 1995 retired military were victims of the GPO & WEP. It was not until 1995 when Congress saw the error of their ways that they changed the law to exempt military retirees from the offset and windfall penalties.
| Many faculty members at public universities in Ohio participate in Teachers Insurance and Annuity Association-College Retirement Equities Fund (TIAA-CREF) and are thus exempt from reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP). Other faculty and staff at the same universities who participate in the public retirement system are victims of Social Security benefit reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP) or both. |
· City, county, township and state elected officials who become eligible for a public pension and have worked for over 30 years in the private sector will be exempt from reductions through Windfall (WEP).
There may be other examples that we are not aware of. If you have specific knowledge of any other examples where retirees who receive a public pension and are able to be exempt from reductions through Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP), please send us the details.
We do not want to change the system for retired military, faculty and elected officials; we do want equal treatment and fairness for public service retirees who are subject to Social Security benefit reductions. The best way to achieve that is to repeal the Offset (GPO) or Windfall (WEP) through HR 2638 and S 1523.
MORE REASONS TO REPEAL THE GPO AND WEP
· GPO/WEP is unfair to widows and widowers
o First and foremost, the GPO and WEP hurt the very people that Social Security was designed to help.
o Many elderly continue to work past age 65 because they receive a widow’s spousal benefit that would either be eliminated or drastically reduced upon retirement with a public pension.
o Widows and widowers on fixed income with a public pension receive a COLA each year that further reduces the meager Social Security benefit. In all instances this results in an overpayment and in many instances this ends up with the widow receiving zero benefits from Social Security.
· GPO/WEP is not a budget issue
o Money was deposited with the Social Security system with the understanding that we, the retirees, would receive full benefits at retirement age. Reinstating lost benefits to the victims of GPO and WEP would not need any new money.
o The Congressional Budget Office, in testimony to the Subcommittee on Social Security on June 27, 2000, presented a table that stated the cost to repeal the GPO for 2002 would be 1.5 billion dollars. “CBO estimates the HR 1217 now (HR 664) would increase Social Security outlays by at least $4.9 billion over the 2001-2010 period; the Social Security actuaries estimate that, over the next 75 years, the costs would be negligible (less than 0.005 percent of taxable payroll).”
· Current public service employees are unaware of GPO/WEP
o Each year an unsuspecting 75,000 new retirees become victims of either the GPO or WEP or both. Currently there are 305,000 retirees under GPO and 515,000 retirees under WEP.
o Public service employees are unaware of the GPO and WEP until retirement. Although the SSA has brochures explaining both the GPO and WEP, they do not emphasize this as part of the individual Social Security Statement sent yearly to each public service employee.
| Repeal of GPO/WEP is correct politics |
| On October 4, 2002 the Congressional Thomas Report indicated 179 bipartisan cosponsors of HR 2638. |
| There is a companion bill in the Senate (S 1523) with 14 cosponsors. |
| The President and Mrs. Bush support action to improve the quantity and quality of teachers with private sector experience. This was reported in the New York Times, April 25, 2002, “Can you afford to be a teacher”. Both the GPO and WEP are obstacles to their goal. |
| In one year Offset/Windfall has compiled 13,314 signatures in the support of change/repeal of the GPO and WEP. |
| In a democratic society how can the repeal of the GPO and WEP continue to be ignored by our elected leaders? |
COST OF LIVING (COLA)
Did you know that thousands of retired widows and widowers receiving Social Security benefits will eventually receive nothing, zero, zilch, nada from Social Security because of the Offset caused by COLA’s granted each year through their public pension? The Social Security system benefits more than does the retiree. Now that makes no sense at all. The treatment of the COLA by Social Security due to the Offset is a lose-lose situation for everyone and must be changed. Retirees must report the COLA to Social Security, and then endure overpayments only to be eliminated from any Social Security benefit. A bad program has gone haywire.
We have been able to operate for the past two years because of the generous donations from many readers. The September Newsletter was sent by regular snail mail to 390 people. Included in that number are letters sent to each office of every Ohio Congressperson and Senator. The cost of reproduction and mailing was approximately $175.00. The snail mail is essential to the success of our effort. Those retirees without computers or with computers that cannot download the “attachments” must remain a part of our communication system. The September Newsletter was also e-mailed to 448 people. Since we use MicroSoft Hotmail we are limited to 300 e-mails in a 24 hour period and 50 e-mails at a time. The computer and e-mail time are essentially free. We now ask those who receive this to please donate so that we may continue to serve others through snail mail. Send to: Offset/Windfall, 8968 Lyncris Dr. Cincinnati, OH 45242 (DO NOT SEND TO P.O.BOX).
Although the e-mailed Newsletters are sent without charge to those with computers, the compilations encountered are considerable, ie. downloading the attachments. There are many retirees with computers who receive the Newsletter by snail mail. We would prefer to send it by e-mail, however, if snail mail is best for your situation, we will do our best to accommodate your needs. We will not send out future Newsletters by snail mail unless we receive enough donations to cover reproduction and mailing expenses. As you might suspect, these are not our only expenses.
When you receive the Newsletter please make copies and discuss the GPO and WEP with your relatives and friends. It’s amazing how many people will be affected by one or both of these laws.
Offset/Windfall was recently mentioned in The Washington Post, Federal Diary by Steve Barr, August 18, 2002. We have been interviewed on local T.V. and in newspaper articles. Also many letters have been sent to and appeared in “letters to the editor”. Although we are not sure of the exact count, we know for a fact that a good number of Ohio Congresspersons and an Ohio Senator have become more knowledgeable of and now support the issues surrounding repeal of GPO and WEP because of Offset/Windfall information and contacts. A number of them are cosponsors of earlier legislation; we need all of them to cosponsor repeal of GPO and WEP legislation HR 2638 and S 1523.
The content of the Newsletter comes from you the reader, items we learn about through letters, e-mails, and from issues we want to bring to your attention. You keep us going. Thanks for your input.
OFFSET/WINDFALL
8968 Lyncris Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45242
www.dingomt.com/ssoffsetlaw/
ssoffset@hotmail.com
Home | Take Action Now | OffSet Letter Campaign | Newsletters