Full List of Democrats Who Voted Against Expanding Social Security Benefits

While the House of Representatives approved the Social Security Fairness Act with a majority vote of 325 to 75, not all lawmakers supported the bill that will likely expand benefits for millions of Americans.

The bill received wide bipartisan support to get rid of the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP) and the Government Pension Offset (GPO) Provision, which prevented Americans who also receive pensions and their spouses from getting the full Social Security benefits each month.

“This could mean slightly larger checks for many people who are struggling with the rising cost of living, particularly with grocery prices soaring,” Kevin Thompson, a finance expert and the founder and CEO of 9i Capital Group, told Newsweek. “This change would provide some relief to retirees feeling the pinch of inflation.”

Which Democrats voted against the Social Security Fairness Act?

While nearly all Democrats in the House supported the measure, four voted against the law in a rare stance against increasing benefits for Americans.

The group of Democrats who voted against the bill included the following Representatives: Lloyd Doggett of Texas, Steny Hoyer of Maryland, Henry “Hank” Johnson of Georgia, and John Larson of Connecticut.

“While I am glad to see the House take up the issue of Social Security, we need to take comprehensive action to enhance benefits and extend the program’s solvency, something the United States Congress has not done in more than 50 years,” Larson said in a statement.

He added: “I want to commend Reps. Abigail Spanberger and Garret Graves for their bipartisan work to repeal the WEP and GPO, unfair provisions that penalize public servants, including teachers, firefighters, and police officers. I am proud to join them in the fight to repeal these unjust provisions, but it must be responsibly paid for to prevent automatic benefit cuts down the road. I could not vote for the bills on the Floor tonight because they are not paid for and therefore put Americans’ hard-earned benefits at risk.”

Newsweek reached out to Doggett, Hoyer, Johnson and Larson for comment via email.

Meanwhile, 71 House Republicans also voted against the Social Security Fairness Act.

The bill still needs to get Senate and presidential approval but is expected to become law for Social Security payments dated December 2023 and later.

“The bill expands benefits to a group of individuals who, due to decades’ long policy, were restricted or fully denied their Social Security benefits,” Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek. “And while that may sound extensive, it’s actually a small group percentage wise compared to the overall Social Security pool of recipients, which is why many legislators had no issue passing the bill to extend benefits to them.”

Some may have opposed the bill due to the precedent it sets, especially as the Social Security Administration is facing a funding shortfall that could impact payments as early as 2035.

“While expanding benefits to this group seems like a no-brainer, extending to other groups in future years may put further financial hardship on an already strained Social Security system,” Beene said.

Depending on their years of contributions to Social Security, roughly 3 million public service workers, firefighters, police officers, teachers and their spouses will see an increase to their benefits monthly if the bill reaches final passage in the Senate and on President Joe Biden’s desk.

Still, there are some financial concerns, as the Social Security Fairness Act is estimated to cost $196 billion over the next decade.

“I’m curious to see how the system will manage this adjustment without overextending payments, given that the Social Security Trust Fund is already under significant pressure,” Thompson said. “While this could offer immediate relief, it’s another step that might accelerate the depletion of the trust fund unless additional funding solutions are implemented for long-term sustainability.”