A last-minute vote in the Senate has approved a long-awaited reform that will increase the Social Security pension amount for millions of Americans. It’s called the Social Security Fairness Act. What it does, in short, is restore benefits that had been reduced or eliminated for decades for teachers, police officers, firefighters, and other public workers who also receive a pension.
Until now, those who worked in the public sector could not receive 100% of their Social Security benefits if they had previously contributed in the private sector. Why? Because of a rule called the Windfall Elimination Provision. It sounds technical, but what it means is that, to avoid a supposed “double benefit,” they reduced what you were entitled to in your Social Security check.
How will this Social Security change work?
To give you an idea, this inequality has been affecting thousands of teachers, mail carriers, police officers, and firefighters, among others, for over 50 years. Imagine working for years in a private sector job, contributing to Social Security, and then discovering that, when you retire, you’re not paid everything you’re entitled to because you also have a public pension. Sounds unfair, right?
With this measure, retirees who worked in the public sector and also in the private sector will be able to receive the full Social Security benefit. And not only that:
- The spouses of these workers will also be able to receive the full benefit if their partner passes away.
- The conditions are equalized with those of anyone who has worked solely in the private sector.
A change that has been pending for a long time
This measure was approved by the House of Representatives in November and finally by the Senate this weekend with a vote of 76 to 20. Four senators chose not to vote.
Why were there votes against it?
And it’s true that the cost is not small: $196 billion. Currently, it is estimated that the Social Security fund will be insolvent in about 10 years unless changes are made. This new expense could bring that deadline forward by about six months.
But, on the other hand, many defend that this reform corrects a historical inequality that should have never existed.