Would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who did not pay Social Security
Democrats have been caught doing the very thing they’ve been accusing President-elect Donald Trump of doing: Cutting Social Security.
On Wednesday, the U.K. Daily Mail reported Senate Democrats are trying to push through a Social Security reform bill they want to see signed by President Joe Biden before Trump takes office.
The Social Security Fairness Act aims to repeal provisions that reduce payouts to public sector employees like police officers, firefighters, teachers, and post workers. The Mail cites The Committee for a Responsible Budget in their article, and that group states this would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections by giving increased benefits to 3 million people who paid into their state or local pensions that did not pay Social Security.
The CRFB also states, “As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime.”
The think tank says if Social Security runs out of money under this bill, as much as $400,000 in benefits would be lost for the average couple. CRFB states the cost for the bill over the next decade — citing the Congressional Budget Office — would be $190 billion.
After already passing in the House of Representatives, the push for a vote in the Senate comes from Democrat Sen. Chuck Schumer while Republican Sen. Rand Paul wants to add an amendment to the bill gradually raising the age of retirement to 70.
Paul spoke on the matter to The Hill.
“It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,” he said, following up by commenting, “If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.”
Schumer tried to pose the effort on X in the most altruistic fashion last week, saying, “It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service.”
Despite this appearing to be an expansion of Social Security, it is a short-term payoff for some that will ultimately be incredibly costly.
Biden gave similar statements in a press release from May, saying, “Medicare is stronger and Social Security remains strong. As long as I am President, I will keep strengthening Social Security and Medicare and protecting them from Republicans’ attempts to cut benefits Americans have earned.”
In July, Democrat Rep. Hakeem Jeffries invoked to boogeyman that is Project 2025 to say Trump would be the end of Social Security.
He claimed, “Trump’s Project 2025 will end Social Security and Medicare as we know it.”
Despite looking to address excessive government spending, Trump stated earlier this month, “We’re not touching Social Security.”
Under Democrats’ bill, cuts will be made, and insolvency will be sped up.
It is unclear whether Democrats actually think this is helpful, or if they just want to create a massive disaster later — perhaps for the president-elect to “deal” with.
That all being said, there may be a far less conspiratorial explanation for this latest move from the Democrats.
Hanlon’s Razor states we, “shouldn’t attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”
This article appeared originally on The Western Journal.
Democrats hastily trying to push through bill that ‘would cost average couple $25,000’ ahead of Trump’s presidency
Its high-profile Republican co-sponsors include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Vice President-elect JD Vance
Senate Democrats are rushing to push through a Social Security reform bill ahead of Donald Trump taking office that one group estimated would cost the average couple $25,000 in benefits.
The Social Security Fairness Act would repeal two provisions that currently reduce payouts to public sector employees like cops, firefighters, teachers and US Postal workers.
The Committee for a Responsible Budget (CRFB), a bipartisan think tank, argued this change would make Social Security insolvent six months earlier than current projections.
It would do this by giving increased benefits to nearly 3 million retirees who at some point in their careers paid into state or local pension plans instead of paying into Social Security.
‘As a result, we estimate a typical dual-income couple retiring in 2033 would see their benefits cut by an additional $25,000 over their lifetime, with over $8,000 of that additional cut coming in the roughly half a year of advanced insolvency,’ the group wrote.
If Social Security runs out of money under the bill’s reforms, the think tank said the average couple could lose out on as much as $400,000 in lifetime benefits.
It cited the Congressional Budget Office, which estimated the bill would cost the federal government more than $190 billion over the next decade.
The bill already passed 327-75 in the House of Representatives last month.
Following pressure from House Democrats, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer plans to bring it up for a vote this week. It will be further debated on Wednesday.
‘It would ensure Americans are not erroneously denied their well-earned social security benefits simply because they chose at some point to work in their careers in public service,’ Schumer posted on X.
The Senate version of the bill has 62 cosponsors, 14 of them Republicans. Its proponents want to see it voted through and brought to President Joe Biden’s desk before it expires on December 31.
Its high-profile Republican cosponsors include Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska and Vice President-elect JD Vance.
As the vote inches closer, there are some members of the GOP who are debating the bill’s impact on the long-term financial health of Social Security, The Hill reported.
Well-known fiscal hawk Senator Rand Paul, a Republican of Kentucky, wants his colleagues to vote on an amendment to the bill that would gradually raise the retirement age to 70.
‘It speeds the bankruptcy of Social Security. Social Security is due to go bankrupt in 2034. This will speed it up by a year or so. It’s $200 billion added to a program that is already short of money,’ he told The Hill. ‘If you’re going to add to its mandate by expanding it, you should pay for it.’
If passed, the bill would get rid of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO), two tweaks to Social Security that have been in place since 1983.
Right now, the WEP lowers benefits for workers who also receive a public pension from a job that’s not covered by Social Security, or jobs where employer aren’t paying into the program.
For instance, many public schools across the country have opted out of participating in Social Security taxes.
If a teacher from one of those schools works part-time during the summer at a job that is covered under Social Security, the WEP makes it so their eventual benefits are commensurate to the hours they worked at that part-time job.
This was done to prevent public sector workers from ‘double-dipping’ by collecting a public pension and full Social Security benefits even if their main job didn’t pay into the program.
The GPO cuts two-thirds of the Social Security benefit received by spouses, widows or widowers who collect pensions from work that wasn’t covered by Social Security taxes.
In reality, these two provisions mean millions of Americans collecting Social Security have their benefits reduced by hundreds of dollars per month.
That is true for Terry Hoover, who was a firefighter for 20 years in Louisville, Kentucky. Now retired, he said the WEP and GPO cost his family more than $1,000 every month.
‘My Social Security is reduced due to my pension,’ Hoover said at a rally earlier this week. ‘And then my wife, she was a nurse for 41 years and paid into the Social Security system, you know, and I cannot draw one penny off of her because of my pension.’
The CRFB argued that these reforms will wreck Social Security in the long term, even though retirees will see more money in their checks in the short term.
‘Rather than repealing WEP/GPO and adding roughly $200 billion to Social Security’s shortfall, lawmakers should reform them,’ it wrote. ‘We encourage lawmakers to pursue solutions to Social Security’s looming insolvency and not further worsen the program’s finances.’
More Stories
‘How Did You Not Know?’: Swalwell’s Best Dem Pal Tries To Convince Press He Was Clueless
Sen. Cornyn: Why the SAVE Act matters more than the filibuster
No Deal! Trump to Blockade Strait of Hormuz After Iran Refuses to Give up Nukes