On Wednesday, the Senate will vote on a plan to enhance Social Security benefits for persons eligible for non-Social Security government pensions. The Social Security Fairness Act, which easily passed the House of Representatives thanks to bipartisan support, will now be put to a final vote before it is signed into law.
Despite broad support, including from Senators, the Republican party is divided, with many opposing the bill due to its hefty cost.
One anonymous Senator who was present during the closed-door meetings noted, “I think most of our members were alarmed that something so big would come straight to the Senate floor” because it had not been marked up by the Senate Finance Committee.
The opinions of the Senators opposed to the Social Security Fairness Act
The lack of support coincides with other controversial measures, such as gradually raising the retirement age to offset costs, as demanded by a group of Senate conservatives led by Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.).
As Paul stated to the Hill. “It hastens the collapse of Social Security. Social Security is expected to fall insolvent in 2034. This will speed things up by around a year. It adds $200 billion to an already-underfunded program.
If you want to increase its mandate, you must pay for it. One long-standing recommendation is to gradually increase the age of eligibility. I will include that as an amendment. If we gradually raise the retirement age [by three months per year over the next 12 years], it will reach 70 and be associated with longevity.
This would pay for the expansion. I will not vote to expand [Social Security benefits] until they are paid for. Several more people oppose this law as well. So it’s likely that the others just want to postpone it as long as possible in the hopes of not being able to finish it this week,” he said.
Surprisingly, many Republican politicians, including President-Elect Trump, are hesitant to talk about retirement age because their major demographic is seniors.
However, if Senator Paul drags out the debate, the bill may fail, delaying the Senate’s consideration of a stopgap funding package, which must be passed by the end of the day Friday to avoid a government shutdown.
Senate Republican Whip John Thune (S.D.) chimed in less strongly, recognizing the significant rift among the party. “There was a lot of debate about it today. I believe it will ultimately come down to individual members making their own decisions.
Obviously, I’m concerned about Social Security’s long-term viability, which is something I believe we should address,” he continued.
But not everyone is as tempered; even though the bill would only accelerate the Social Security shortfall by six months (according to the Congressional Budget Office) and that more reform is required for the overall survival of the program, Senators like Mike Lee (R-Utah), a prominent conservative, have vehemently held funding as the major issue.
“It must be offset somehow. We have never in history, to my knowledge, launched such a big bomb that will blow a $200 billion hole in the Social Security trust fund,” he stated. I recognize the need to rectify some injustices that have emerged in this area.
I don’t think any member of our conference disagrees that we need to make some repairs, but I believe we’re deceiving ourselves and mistreating the American people if we blow a $200 billion hole in it and don’t think about how to fix it,” Lee said.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) is among its staunch opponents. “Hopefully, it is defeated. Many co-sponsors were motivated by the impact it has on their state’s residents.
They always assumed it will be paid for. It’s far too wide. “It provides benefits to people who were not harmed by the 1970s fix,” he remarked, referring to the Government Pension Act. “I would view it as grotesquely irresponsible.”
ALSO SEE : Everything we know about the $500 stimulus cheque.