Lawmakers file discharge petition to repeal controversial tax rule affecting federal retirees

A bipartisan pair of lawmakers on Tuesday filed a discharge petition seeking to force a vote on the House floor on a measure that would eliminate a pair of controversial tax rules that reduce the retirement benefits of some ex-government workers.

Reps. Abigail Spanberger, D-Va., and Garret Graves, R-La., are the lead sponsors of the Social Security Fairness Act (H.R. 82), a measure introduced last year that would eliminate Social Security’s windfall elimination provision and government pension offset.

The windfall elimination provision reduces the Social Security benefits of retried employees who spent a portion of their careers in the private sector in addition to a federal, state or local government post where Social Security is not intended as an element of their retirement income, like the federal government’s Civil Service Retirement System. And the government pension offset reduces spousal and survivor Social Security benefits in families with retired government workers.

The windfall elimination provision reportedly affects the Social Security benefits of roughly 2 million former public servants, while the GPO impacts nearly 800,000 retirees.

Though the bill has widespread support in Congress among both parties—with more than 300 cosponsors in the House alone—the chamber’s leadership has balked at allowing the bill to receive a floor vote. If Spanberger and Graves can secure at least 218 signatures among House lawmakers, they can then force such a vote to take place.

“For more than 40 years, millions of Americans who paid into Social Security during their careers have been stripped of their retirement benefits—retired police officers who began second careers after retiring from the force, retired teachers who took a summer job, retired federal employees who spent a portion of their careers in the private sector, retired firefighters who worked a second job or other retired public servants who contributed to Social Security during their careers,” the duo said in a statement. “Our legislation to eliminate these unjust penalties on public servants is supported by a bipartisan coalition of 326 lawmakers—far more than the majority needed for the discharge petition to succeed or for the bill to pass on the House floor.”

In an analysis of the bill released Monday, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that the bill would cost $195 billion over the next decade. While a 12-figure price tag ordinarily would cause Republicans to balk at such a proposal, Graves had a different outlook on the estimate.

“The CBO has confirmed: if H.R. 82, the Social Security Fairness Act, is not signed into law this year, $195.6 billion in Social Security benefits will be stolen from public service retirees over the next decade,” he said. “And since CBO only looks forward, not in the past, it is staggering to think of the literal hundreds of billions stolen from public service retirees over the last 40 years when they needed it most.”

The measure has widespread support from federal employee unions and other associations representing public servants.

“[The American Federation of Government Employees] is doubling down on our support for a recent congressional push to repeal two controversial rules that have caused public servants to lose two-thirds or even the entire amount of their Social Security benefits,” said AFGE National President Everett Kelley.

And William Shackelford, national president of the National Active and Retired Federal Employees Association, sent a letter to House lawmakers Monday urging them to support the discharge petition.

“For nearly four decades, the WEP and GPO have taken away the hard-earned income of public servants at all levels of government by penalizing federal workers, teachers, police officers, firefighters and others whose work is not covered by Social Security,” he wrote. “[These] penalties result in thousands of dollars in lost benefits every year simply because these workers chose to serve their nation, state or local community. This type of service should not be punished, yet this is exactly what the WEP and GPO do.”