Social Security Fairness Act

June 5, 2007

Social Security Fairness Needs Your Attention: While we have been fighting for decent TRS benefits here in the Texas legislature, we also are engaged in a national effort to pass the Social Security Fairness Act in the U.S. Congress. This bipartisan legislation would repeal two unfair federal pension offsets that take duly earned benefits away from Texas school employees, as well as public servants in more than a dozen other states, because they receive public pensions for work not covered by Social Security.

The Fairness Act, introduced as H.R. 82 in the U.S. House and S. 206 in the U.S. Senate, now has 309 House co-sponsors and 31 Senate co-cosponsors. Neither of the two U.S. senators from Texas, Republicans Kay Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn, has signed up in support. Twenty-five of the 32 Texans in the U.S. House are co-sponsors. The seven House members who have refused to sign on as co-sponsors so far are Republicans Joe Barton, Kevin Brady, John Culberson, Jeb Hensarling, Sam Johnson, Lamar Smith, and Mac Thornberry.

Please put pressure on our two senators and these seven recalcitrant U.S. House members to help win a fair shake for Texas education retirees. You can send two letters to them from the TFT Web site, one for the senators at http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity10 and one for the House members at http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity9. Keep watching also for updates and action items on this issue in upcoming hotline messages, including reports on our Activists for Congressional Education meetings with members of Congress.

TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE (800-764-1177)--THURSDAY, MARCH 2, 2006
(copyright 2006 Texas Federation of Teachers)

Social Security Investigation; Hurricane-Aid Headaches; Special-Session Speculation

Social Security Investigation: Auditors from the Social Security Administration will be in several of the few Texas school districts that participate in Social Security this month. They are going to review records on the short-term hiring of school employees on the verge of retirement by these districts, which enabled these employees to pay into Social Security on their own behalf for a short period and thereby protect their earned, spousal Social Security benefits. A right-wing advocacy group based in Ohio that supports privatization of Social Security has instigated the investigation, attacking the school districts for alleged “waste, fraud, and abuse.” However, as far as we can see, these school districts were only doing what federal law allowed, helping soon-to-be-retired school employees use the so-called “last-day exemption” and thus avoid a grossly unfair offset against their spousal benefit.

Congress repealed the exemption as of July 1, 2004, but only after a multi-year battle, with TFT and allies in Congress arguing that the unfair offset itself should be repealed, not the exemption allowing the unfairness to be avoided. As of today, 310 members of the U.S. House (more than two-thirds) and two dozen U.S. senators seem to agree with us on the fairness issue. They have signed up to cosponsor the Social Security Fairness Act (companion bills H.R. 147 and S. 619), which would repeal not only the Government Pension Offset but also the similarly unjust Windfall Elimination Provision.

Social Security Unfairness

Word has reached us that the Social Security Administration is auditing some Texas school districts' short-term, pre-retirement hiring of education employees, which helped those employees avoid the unfair Government Pension Offset (GPO).

This unfair offset takes away some or all of the spousal benefits of a school employee who retires from a school district not covered by Social Security. The offset is applied even though these spousal Social Security benefits have been duly earned by the covered employment of a spouse elsewhere. More than 90 percent of Texas school employees work in school districts that are not covered by Social Security.

Until July 2004, it was possible for a school employee to avoid the GPO by working briefly pre-retirement for a school district that contributes to Social Security, thus taking advantage of what was known as the "last day" exemption. The expiration of this exemption in 2004 caused a spike in the number of retirements from Texas public schools and aggravated the Texas teacher shortage. Many Texas educators felt they had no choice but to quit their jobs and work briefly in a district contributing to Social Security, in order to enter retirement before July 2004 and thereby preserve their entitlement to spousal benefits from Social Security.

Now, however, the Social Security Administration apparently is questioning the legitimacy of some districts' short-term employment of employees that enabled them to qualify for the exemption. Potentially in jeopardy are spousal benefits already being paid to some retired Texas school employees.

If you think it's outrageous for Social Security officials to try to reinterpret the "last day"? exemption after the fact and to revisit the decision to grant these employees the benefits they duly qualified for, you're on our wavelength. As far as we're concerned, this development only adds more urgency to the case for outright repeal of the Government Pension Offset and the kindred Windfall Elimination Provision.

Both of these unfair offsets would be repealed under the Social Security Fairness Act, H.R. 147. This measure has 306 cosponsors in the U.S. House yet has not been allowed by the leadership to come to a vote on the House floor. Our challenge in 2006 is to break the leadership blockade. You can send an e-mail letter to your member of Congress urging enactment of this repeal legislation from the TFT Web site, http://www.unionvoice.org/campaign/socialsecurity5.

Social Security Unfairness

Stay tuned for further details on both the Fairness Act and

TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE (800-764-1177)–WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 4, 2004

TFT Congressional Testimony Makes the Case for Full Repeal of Social Security Offsets

TFT's recent testimony submitted to the Social Security Subcommittee of the U.S. House Ways and Means Committee sizes up the current situation on the issue of Social Security fairness. Upcoming hotlines will inform you of new options for your own grass-roots lobbying efforts on this subject. In the meantime, here are key excerpts from TFT's testimony:

Congressman Brady [Kevin Brady, Republican of The Woodlands], as author of H.R. 4391, deserves credit for recognizing that the Windfall Elimination Provision is "terribly unfair," as he has put it. By replacing the WEP with a new benefit-offset formula that could give back to school employees an average of 23 cents for each dollar currently taken away by the WEP offset, H.R. 4391 would be a partial corrective for that unfairness....However, we believe Congress can and must do more to remedy the inequity of the WEP and the other offset that does grave harm to public servants–the Government Pension Offset.

These unjust offsets single out public employees like teachers for harsh treatment. The WEP typically takes $306 a month out of the Social Security retirement benefit of a dedicated public servant who has earned those Social Security benefits. Even more damage is done by the GPO, which cuts Social Security widow's and spouse's benefits by two-thirds of the pension earned from public service not covered by Social Security. For most of those affected, the GPO wipes out the entire Social Security benefit, and for many the result is poverty.

....Texas educators already suffer low salaries, lack any guaranteed cost-of-living adjustment in their Texas Teacher Retirement System pension, and must bear soaring costs for retiree health insurance of deteriorating quality....Yet both the existing and proposed versions of Social Security offsets for "noncovered" public service rest on the false premise that public servants already have the benefit of a sufficient substitute for Social Security and therefore can afford to lose some of their earned Social Security benefit through an offset. No formula-based justification makes this a fair outcome.

....The current Congress should debate and vote on another bill that has gained broad support and would go the full distance toward fairness–H.R. 594. This bill proposes a Social Security Fairness Act that not only would repeal the WEP entirely but also would repeal the equally unfair and damaging GPO offset of spousal benefits. The Texas Federation of Teachers therefore calls on the Social Security Subcommittee to move quickly to bring H.R. 594 out of subcommittee and onto the floor for a vote. Another option would be to mark up H.R. 4391 promptly, send it to the House floor, and let the broader language of H.R. 594 be debated and voted on as an amendment to H.R. 4391.

A future hotline will give more details on H.R. 4391 and raise some specific concerns about how the legislation would work if enacted. Meanwhile, our primary focus remains on the Fairness Act, which has 300 House cosponsors, 31 Senate cosponsors, and needs the signatures of just 26 more House members on a discharge petition in order to force a prompt floor vote.

SEC. 418. 60-MONTH PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICATION OF GOVERNMENT PENSION OFFSET EXEMPTION.

(a) WIFE'S INSURANCE BENEFITS- Section 202(b)(4)(A) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 402(b)(4)(A)) is amended by striking `if, on the last day she was employed by such entity' and inserting `if, throughout the period beginning with the period of 60 calendar months preceding the last day she was employed by such entity and ending with such last day'.

(b) HUSBAND'S INSURANCE BENEFITS- Section 202(c)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(c)(2)(A)) is amended by striking `if, on the last day he was employed by such entity' and inserting `if, throughout the period beginning with the period of 60 calendar months preceding the last day he was employed by such entity and ending with such last day'.

(c) WIDOW'S INSURANCE BENEFITS- Section 202(e)(7)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(e)(7)(A)) is amended by striking `if, on the last day she was employed by such entity' and inserting `if, throughout the period beginning with the period of 60 calendar months preceding the last day she was employed by such entity and ending with such last day'.

(d) WIDOWER'S INSURANCE BENEFITS- Section 202(f)(2)(A) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 402(f)(2)(A)) is amended by striking `if, on the last day he was employed by such entity' and inserting `if, throughout the period beginning with the period of 60 calendar months preceding the last day he was employed by such entity and ending with such last day'.

-----------------------

(f) EFFECTIVE DATE- The amendments made by this section shall apply with respect to applications for benefits under title II of the Social Security Act filed on or after the first day of the first month that begins after the date of the enactment of this Act, except that such amendments shall not apply in connection with monthly periodic benefits of any individual based on earnings while in service described in section 202(b)(4)(A), 202(c)(2)(A), 202(e)(7)(A), or 202(f)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act (in the matter preceding clause (i) thereof)--

(1) if the last day of such service occurs before the end of the 90-day period following the date of the enactment of this Act, or

(2) in any case in which the last day of such service occurs after the end of such 90-day period, such individual performed such service during such 90-day period which constituted `employment' as defined in section 210 of such Act, and all such service subsequently performed by such individual has constituted such `employment'.

June 30 Marks End of Social Security "Last-Day" Exemption, Spurring Retirements; Exemption Lives On in Narrowly Defined Circumstances

After June 30, for almost everybody the last-day exemption from the Government Pension Offset (GPO) under Social Security will cease to exist. Partly as a result, officials at the Texas Teacher Retirement System foresee a 25-percent increase in the number of school employees who will retire from Texas public schools this year versus last year.

Thousands of teachers and other school employees this year have arranged brief pre-retirement employment in the handful of Texas school districts covered by Social Security. By this means, they are able to preserve the spousal or widow/er's benefits, earned for them by their spouse's Social Security contributions, that otherwise would be wiped out by the GPO. From July 1 on, however, the basic rule will be that you can avoid the GPO only by working your last 60 months in a job covered by Social Security.

There is one temporary exception to the "continuous 60 months" requirement. This transitional exception allows you to use any 60 months you worked in a Texas school district covered by Social Security to qualify for the GPO exemption, as long as that includes at least the last month before you retire. This transitional rule is valid only for retirements during the five years after the effective date of the new law. Thus, it applies through June 2009.

In addition, the Social Security Administration has interpreted the new law in a way that carves out one more exception. As we reported in the March 24, 2004, hotline, this exception affects only an employee who applied for Social Security spouse's or surviving spouse's benefits before April 2004. These individuals "avoid the GPO reduction if their last day of government employment was covered by both Social Security and their pension system (regardless of when that ‘last day' occurs)," according to guidelines posted on the Social Security Web site (emphasis added).

In other words, for folks in this narrow category the "last-day" exemption lives on. Please note, though, that this exception to the deadline for use of the last-day exemption is available only to someone who both applied for and was already eligible to receive spouse's or surviving spouse's benefits at the time of the application prior to April 2004. That means, among other things, that you must already by then have reached the age when you could start receiving benefits (basically, 62 for spousal benefits, 60 for widow/er's benefits).

The end of the "last-day" exemption from the GPO ought to increase the pressure for repealing this punitive offset altogether. The legislation in Congress to repeal the offset, H.R. 594 and its companion S. 349, has the cosponsorship of 300 U.S. House members and 31 U.S. senators, and 191 House members even have signed a discharge petition to force House leaders to bring the bill to a prompt floor vote. You can encourage your member of the House to support this effort with a phone call by way of our toll-free line to the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 1-800-839-5276. You also can send your member of the House a letter on this issue from our home page on the Web, http://www.tft.org/.

TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE (800-764-1174)–MONDAY, JUNE 28, 2004

Just 26 More Signatures Needed to Force Social Security Fairness Vote; Problems Seen in Federal Higher-Ed Legislation

Social Security Fairness: As Congress headed into a recess for the Fourth of July holiday, the number of House members seeking to force a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act reached 192–just 26 short of the total required to compel a vote on the House floor.

The Fairness Act, H.R. 594, would repeal two unfair offsets that cut Social Security benefits for retired public employees who receive a public pension from a school district or other local government. The bill has 300 House cosponsors, nearly 70 percent of the House membership, but House leaders oppose the bill and have bottled it up in a subcommittee for the past 16 months. That's why 192 House members now have taken the extraordinary step of signing a discharge petition for H.R. 594. This parliamentary maneuver would force release of the bill from committee and a prompt House floor vote as soon as 218 House members, constituting a simple majority of the House, have signed.

Seven U.S. House members from Texas are cosponsors of the Fairness Act but have not signed the discharge petition to allow their bill to come to a vote:

Henry Bonilla, Republican of San Antonio
Michael Burgess, Republican of Highland Village
John Carter, Republican of Georgetown
Ralph Hall, Republican of Rockwall
Randy Neugebauer, Republican of Lubbock
Ron Paul, Republican of Clute
Pete Sessions, Republican of Dallas

You can reach all seven by way of our toll-free line to the U.S. Capitol switchboard, 1-800-839-5276. Just ask the operator to connect you to their offices. Every one of your calls will help, but the calls that make the biggest impact are those you make to your own representative in the U.S. House. If you reside in the district of one of these seven, you also should visit the TFT home page on the Web, http://www.tft.org/, and send the letter you'll find there by scrolling down the right-hand side of the page to "Email your representatives in Congress."

June 21, 2004

Social Security Fairness: The U.S. House is now just 29 signatures away from forcing a vote on the Social Security Fairness Act, the bill to repeal the Government Pension Offset and Windfall Elimination Provision.

These two offsets subtract billions of dollars a year from the Social Security benefits earned by retired school employees and other public servants. Under the Fairness Act, H.R. 594, these unfair offsets would disappear, and Social Security benefits for public employees would get a multi-billion-dollar boost.

House leaders have kept this bill bottled up in a subcommittee for 16 months, even though almost 70 percent of the membership (300 House members out of 435) has signed up to cosponsor the bill. Frustrated by the leadership blockade, a total of 189 members of the House now have signed a formal "discharge petition" to force a floor vote on the repeal bill. When the number of signers reaches 218–50 percent of the House membership plus one–that floor vote must occur, whether the House leadership likes it or not.

TFT LEGISLATIVE HOTLINE (800-764-1174)–MONDAY, JUNE 14, 2004

Update on Social Security Offsets

The deadline is approaching for use of the last-day exemption to avoid the impact of the Government Pension Offset (GPO) under Social Security law. The last-day exemption expires on June 30, following enactment of H.R. 743 by the U.S. Congress earlier this year.

The last-day exemption has been used by thousands of Texas school employees to escape the loss of widow/er's and spouse's benefits under Social Security. Under the GPO, Texas school employees who retire from a district not covered by Social Security suffer an offset against their Social Security benefit equaling two-thirds of whatever TRS annuity they receive. The result can be a complete loss of Social Security benefits for many retirees.

The last-day exemption, through June 30, still allows Texas school employees to retire, work as little as a day in a district that does contribute to Social Security, and thereby regain full entitlement to the benefits earned on their behalf by a spouse, avoiding entirely the unjust GPO. For nearly everyone this last escape route around the GPO closes definitively on June 30. (After June 30, a couple of very narrowly defined exceptions will still allow use of the last-day option for a time–and we'll report on those exceptions in an upcoming hotline message.)

Thanks to the grass-roots outcry from educators and other public employees nationwide for abolition of the GPO and the similarly unjust Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), 300 members of the U.S. House and 31 U.S. senators have signed up as cosponsors of H.R. 594 and S. 349, companion bills to repeal both of these offsets. Because this legislation, also known as the Social Security Fairness Act, has been bottled up in a subcommittee at the behest of the House leadership, 158 U.S. House members even have taken the extraordinary step of signing a petition to force a vote on the bill. If another 70 sign the petition, a vote must occur despite the objections of House leaders.

Another option would be for House leaders to advance another recently filed bill, H.R. 4391 by Rep. Kevin Brady, Republican of The Woodlands. This bill offers no relief from the GPO but would create a new formula to replace the WEP, which currently takes up to $306 a month away from public servants such as school employees who by their own labor have earned both Social Security benefits and a state pension. The new formula under Brady's bill on average would restore about 23 cents of every dollar currently taken away by the WEP, at a cost to the treasury of $7 billion over the next ten years. By comparison, full repeal of the WEP under H.R. 594 would cost about $30 billion over that same period. The prospects even for the modest Brady option are uncertain at this point, with a hearing on it supposedly having been promised by the House leadership but not necessarily any further action.

At risk of making you really furious, we feel compelled to point out that other proposals costing as much or more recently have been put on a fast track by House leaders. One is a bill establishing new corporate tax breaks worth $30 billion. It is by Rep. Bill Thomas, Republican of California, who chairs the Ways and Means Committee where the Social Security Fairness Act is languishing. Evidently $30 billion is an easy cost to swallow when it comes to corporate tax breaks, but not when it comes to rewarding teachers and other school employees for dedicating their working lives to public service.

Tom DeLay Gets Social Security Lesson From Local Teachers--April 6, 2004

U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, Republican of Sugar Land, has been taking a lot of heat from folks in his district because of his stance on Social Security offsets that harm Texas school employees.

On Saturday DeLay held a meeting in Rosenberg, just outside Houston, to respond to all the criticism. Hundreds of educators showed up, including many from TFT's affiliates in the Houston area, with the Fort Bend Employee Federation in the vanguard. The local media showed up, too. When DeLay prohibited the media from entering the meeting hall, they gave their full attention to our members who were outside protesting DeLay's Social Security obstructionism.

Inside, Rep. DeLay got the meeting started with a blast at the Texas Federation of Teachers; he accused us of misinforming educators about the merits of the Social Security offset issue. His point was immediately rebutted by a local member not of TFT but of the Texas State Teachers Association, who praised TFT's efforts to get the word out about the unfairness of the Social Security offsets and added that her group was present to show solidarity with TFT.

DeLay also tried to duck responsibility for congressional inaction on the offset issue, asserting that the matter was not his to decide because it falls within the jurisdiction of the House Social Security Subcommittee chaired by Rep. Clay Shaw, Republican of Florida. That response drew boos from the audience, which knew full well that DeLay could get the relevant legislation moving with one phone call.

The majority leader eventually brought the meeting to an abrupt conclusion when a TFT member asked him a simple question: With a two-thirds majority of U.S. House members now cosponsoring the Social Security Fairness Act to repeal the injurious offsets, why won't DeLay let the House vote on this issue? DeLay never answered the question.

For details on the Social Security fairness fight, check out the TFT Web site, www.tft.org. There you can find a letter to send to your member of Congress urging support for the "discharge petition" that would force a vote on the Fairness Act, H.R. 594, despite DeLay's opposition. If 218 members of the U.S. House (a simple majority) sign the petition, the House leadership must schedule a prompt floor vote on the bill. So far 139 have signed, including 16 from Texas.

Contact your representatives in Congress, asking them to support the Social Security Fairness Act. (In addition, call Tom DeLay. He needs to be contacted by everyone, as it is up to him to put the bill on the floor for a vote.) To find out your representative’s name, go to

Once you know the name of your Congressman/woman, call 1-800-839-5276. Ask for your Congressman or woman’s office to express your opinion. You may use the same number to contact your Senators: Kaye Bailey Hutchison and John Cornyn